12 pages A literature review on REMOTE AND ON-SITE KNOWLEDGE WORKER PRODUCTIVITY AND ENGAGEMENT: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE EFFECT OF VIRTUAL INTENSITY AND WORK LOCATION PREFERENCE

Martinez-AmadorDissertation032816FINAL.pdf

Home >Computer Science homework help >12 pages A literature review on REMOTE AND ON-SITE KNOWLEDGE WORKER PRODUCTIVITY AND ENGAGEMENT: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE EFFECT OF VIRTUAL INTENSITY AND WORK LOCATION PREFERENCE

REMOTE AND ON-SITE KNOWLEDGE WORKER PRODUCTIVITY AND ENGAGEMENT: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE EFFECT OF VIRTUAL

INTENSITY AND WORK LOCATION PREFERENCE

JOSEFINA MARTINEZ-AMADOR

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Weatherhead School of Management

Designing Sustainable Systems

CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY

May, 2016

CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

We hereby approve the dissertation of

Josefina Martinez-Amador

candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy*.

Committee Chair

Kalle Lyytinen, Ph.D., Case Western Reserve University

Committee Member

Diane Bailey, Ph.D., University of Texas at Austin

Committee Member

Kathleen Buse, Ph.D., Case Western Reserve University

Committee Member

Roger Saillant, Ph.D., Case Western Reserve University

Date of Defense

March 2, 2016

*We also certify that written approval has been obtained

for any proprietary material contained therein.

Dedication

This work is dedicated to Betty, my loving partner in life and best friend. Without your support, this will not be possible…just like many other things in my life. Thanks for all your love, patience, understanding, and kindness, for being by my side in the good and the bad times….and for being such an inspiration for the human kind...I love you. I also dedicate this to my mother (RIP) and my father (RIP), who always encouraged me to work hard, be a good human being, and never to give up. Their values have been the pillars of my success. And to all my siblings, for their moral support and for always believing in me. And lastly, to all my friends, for their words of encouragement, and unconditional support during these four years. More importantly, I dedicate this work to God, who has given me the strength, the wisdom and the faith to accomplish this personal mission…(“Commit your work to the Lord, and then your plans will succeed” – Proverbs 11:10).

Table of Contents

List of Tables .......................................................................................................................x! List of Figures .................................................................................................................... xi! Abstract ............................................................................................................................ xiii! CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................1!

Personal Research Motivation ...................................................................................... 1! Problem of Practice ....................................................................................................... 2! Gaps in the Research, Study Goals, and Research Questions ....................................... 5!

Gaps in the Research ............................................................................................... 8! Study Goals and Research Questions ..................................................................... 9!

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW, THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK & RESEARCH METHODS ..................................................................................................13!

Remote Work Literature & Previous Research Review ............................................. 13! Knowledge Worker ............................................................................................... 13! The Beginning of Remote Work ........................................................................... 15! Defining Remote Work ......................................................................................... 16! The Positive Organizational Impact of Remote Worker ....................................... 17! The Negative Organizational Impact of Remote Worker ..................................... 20! Remote Work in Virtual Teams ............................................................................ 21! Distributed Work Arrangements ........................................................................... 23! Nomadic Work ...................................................................................................... 25!

Research Literature Review & Socio-Technical Systems .......................................... 36! Socio-Technical Systems ...................................................................................... 36! Technical Subsystem ............................................................................................ 38!

ICT utilization ................................................................................................. 39! Personnel Subsystem ............................................................................................ 41!

Personality and Traits ..................................................................................... 41! Intrinsic Motivation ........................................................................................ 43! Self-Efficacy ................................................................................................... 45! Theories of Employee engagement ................................................................. 47!

Work System/Organizational Structure Subsystem .............................................. 51! Leadership Exchange (Leader-Member Exchange LMX) .............................. 52! Virtual Work Intensity .................................................................................... 53!

Environmental Systems ........................................................................................ 54! Remote Workforce productivity ..................................................................... 55!

Research Questions ..................................................................................................... 58! Research Design .......................................................................................................... 59! Research Framework .................................................................................................. 61! Phase 1 – Research Question and Methodological Approach .................................... 66! Phase 2 – Research Question and Methodological Approach .................................... 67! Phase 3 – Research Question and Methodological Approach .................................... 69! Discussion Section ...................................................................................................... 72!

Remaining Chapters .............................................................................................. 72! CHAPTER III: DRIVERS OF PRODUCTIVITY AND ENGAGEMENT ......................73!

Introduction ................................................................................................................. 73! Literature Review ........................................................................................................ 77!

Employee engagement .......................................................................................... 77! Employee engagement Related & Different Theories .......................................... 80! Knowledge Worker productivity .......................................................................... 82!

Research Design .......................................................................................................... 84! Methodology ......................................................................................................... 84! Sample ................................................................................................................... 86! Data Collection ..................................................................................................... 87! Data Analysis ........................................................................................................ 89!

Findings ...................................................................................................................... 91! Nature of engagement ........................................................................................... 92! Nature of Disengagement ..................................................................................... 92! New Workplace Practices - Drivers of engagement ............................................. 92! New Workplace Practices - Drivers of Disengagement ....................................... 93! Other New Workplace Dynamics ......................................................................... 93!

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 101! Limitations ................................................................................................................ 108! Implications for Practice and Future Research ......................................................... 109!

CHAPTER IV: THE IMPACT OF VIRTUAL INTENSITY AND WORK LOCATION PREFERENCE ................................................................................................................111!

Introduction ............................................................................................................... 111! Theoretical Foundation, Hypothesis Development, and Conceptual Model ............ 113!

vii

Remote Work productivity ................................................................................. 115! Job Engagement .................................................................................................. 117! ICT Utilization .................................................................................................... 121! Intrinsic Motivation ............................................................................................ 123! Leader–Member Exchange Theory (LMX) ........................................................ 125! Virtual Work Intensity ........................................................................................ 126!

Theoretical Model ..................................................................................................... 128! Hypothesis Development, Research Design and Methods ....................................... 129!

Mediation ............................................................................................................ 131! Moderation .......................................................................................................... 134!

Measurement Model ................................................................................................. 136! Construct Operationalization .................................................................................... 136!

Worker productivity ............................................................................................ 137! Job engagement ................................................................................................... 137! ICT utilization ..................................................................................................... 138! Intrinsic Motivation (work location enjoyment/work location stress) ................ 138! Leadership ........................................................................................................... 138! Virtual Intensity .................................................................................................. 139!

Pre-Testing (Q-Sort & Pilot Test) ............................................................................. 142! Controls and Demographics ...................................................................................... 143! Data Collection and Sample ...................................................................................... 144! Data Analysis ............................................................................................................ 145! Data Screening .......................................................................................................... 147! Measurement Model Analysis .................................................................................. 147!

Exploratory Factor Analysis ............................................................................... 148! Confirmatory Factor Analysis ............................................................................. 150! Convergent and Discriminant Validity ............................................................... 152! Common Method Bias ........................................................................................ 154! Measurement Model Invariance ......................................................................... 155!

Structural Equation Modeling ................................................................................... 157! Hypothesis Testing - Mediation .......................................................................... 158! Hypothesis Testing – Moderation ....................................................................... 162! Interaction Effects ............................................................................................... 166!

Findings .................................................................................................................... 167!

viii

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 169! Limitations and Future Research .............................................................................. 174! Conclusion and Implications for Practice & Academia ............................................ 176!

CHAPTER V: THE IMPACT OF THE BLENDED WORK ALTERNATIVE AND WORKER SELF-EFFICACY .........................................................................................179!

Introduction ............................................................................................................... 179! Theoretical Foundation, Hypothesis Development, and Conceptual Model ............ 181!

Virtual Work Intensity: Extended Review .......................................................... 182! Self-Efficacy ....................................................................................................... 186!

Theoretical Model - Extension .................................................................................. 188! Hypothesis Development, Research Design and Methods ....................................... 189!

Hypothesis Development .................................................................................... 190! Measurement Development ...................................................................................... 197! Construct Operationalization .................................................................................... 198!

Virtual Intensity .................................................................................................. 198! Self-Efficacy ....................................................................................................... 198!

Controls and Demographics ...................................................................................... 199! Data Collection and Sample ...................................................................................... 199! Methods..................................................................................................................... 200!

Hypothesis Testing .............................................................................................. 202! Findings .............................................................................................................. 206!

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 207! Limitations and Future Research .............................................................................. 212! Conclusion and Implications for Practice & Academia ............................................ 213!

CHAPTER VI: INTEGRATED FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION .................................215! Summary of Integrated Findings .............................................................................. 215!

Work Location Preference, Remote Work & Work Location Flexibility .......... 216! ICT utilization ..................................................................................................... 220! Leadership Support ............................................................................................. 222! Worker Self-Efficacy .......................................................................................... 224!

Contributions to Theory ............................................................................................ 225! Socio-Technical Framework – Workforce Productivity and Engagement ......... 226!

Implications for Practice ........................................................................................... 228! Limitations ................................................................................................................ 229!

Future Research ........................................................................................................ 230! Appendix A: Interview Protocol for Qualitative Study ...................................................231! Appendix B: Survey Instrument for Quantitative Study One ..........................................232! Appendix C: Survey Instrument – Quantitative Study Two ............................................236! REFERENCES ................................................................................................................241!

List of Tables

Table 1. Meta-List of Existent Remote Work Research ................................................... 28! Table 2. Sample Demographics ........................................................................................ 87! Table 3. Main Themes Coded ........................................................................................... 90! Table 4. Construct Definition Table ............................................................................... 141! Table 5. Participants' Demographics .............................................................................. 145! Table 6. Pattern Matrix (EFA) & Cronbach Alpha by Factor ........................................ 149! Table 7. EFA Measurement Model Results .................................................................... 150! Table 8. CFA Model Fit Indices ..................................................................................... 151! Table 9. Convergent & Discriminant Validity Results ................................................... 153! Table 10. Common Method Bias (Common Latent Factor Method) Results ................. 155! Table 11. Metric Invariance across Groups Results ....................................................... 156! Table 12. Mediation & Direct Effects Results by Worker Location* ............................. 160! Table 13. Mediation & Direct Effect w/o the Mediator .................................................. 162! Table 14. Estimates from Study Model 2 Part 2: Moderation Effect of Days Working Remote ............................................................................................................. 164! Table 15. Summary of Hypotheses ................................................................................. 165! Table 16. Participants' Demographics ............................................................................ 200! Table 17. Direct Effects on Productivity (Comparative Results) ................................... 203! Table 18. Direct Effects on Engagement (Comparative Results) ................................... 206! Table 19. Hypothesis Testing Summary ......................................................................... 207! Table 20. Integrated Findings ......................................................................................... 216!

List of Figures

Figure 1. Research Questions Addressed in Each Phase of the Study .............................. 12! Figure 2. Sequential Mixed Method Research Approach ................................................. 61! Figure 3. Theoretical Research Framework ...................................................................... 63! Figure 4. Three Phase Sequential Study Approach .......................................................... 64! Figure 5. Proposed Research Design ................................................................................ 65! Figure 6. Proposed Model – Quantitative Study One ....................................................... 68! Figure 7. Conceptual Models Approach - Quantitative Study Two ................................. 71! Figure 8. Key Quotes Supporting Finding #1 – Leadership as a Driver of Engagement ....................................................................................................................... 95! Figure 9. Key Quotes Supporting Finding #2 – Worker Job Engagement & Self-Efficacy as a Driver of engagement .......................................................................... 97! Figure 10. Key Quotes Supporting Finding #3 – Technology .......................................... 99! Figure 11. Key Quotes Supporting Finding #4– Acceptance of Remote Work in the Workplace ............................................................................................................. 101! Figure 12. Theoretical Framework – Quantitative Research Study One ........................ 115! Figure 13. Research Model and Summary of Hypotheses .............................................. 131! Figure 14. Data Analysis Flow Chart ............................................................................. 146! Figure 15. Hypothesis Results (Mediation and Direct Effects) ...................................... 159! Figure 16. Moderation Effect of Virtual Intensity on Work Location Enjoyment and Productivity .............................................................................................................. 166! Figure 17. Moderation Effect of Virtual Intensity on Work Location Stress and Engagement ..................................................................................................................... 167! Figure 18. Theoretical Framework – Quantitative Research (EXPANSION) ................ 182! Figure 19. Research Model Extensions & Hypothesis ................................................... 190! Figure 20. Comparative Analysis (On-site, Blended, and Remote Worker) .................. 212! Figure 21. Socio-Technical Framework – Workforce Productivity & Engagement ...... 228!

xii

Acknowledgements

A special thank you to the honorable members of my Dissertation Committee, who despite the personal challenges I encountered while writing this dissertation, never gave up on me, and never hesitated to challenge me to think beyond what I though was possible. Diane, Kathy, Kalle, and Roger, I am forever in debt with all you.

Many thanks to Kalle Lyytinen, our faculty director, who has challenged me in a

positive and productive manner. His insight related to theoretical development and thinking beyond the obvious has aided in transforming my work and has transformed me to a focused researcher.

Many thanks to all the program faculty, for teaching us what teamwork,

partnership, caring and support for each other means in academia. And from which now we are a team that will stay together in all the still unwritten research and books that are ahead of us.

Many thanks to Sue Nartker and Marilyn Chorman have facilitated this journey

for me, their countless examples of support are immeasurable, and I am forever thankful that they run this program.

Many thanks to Alexis Antes, my editor, for walking this journey with me, and

polishing my ideas into impeccable paragraphs that make this dissertation more amenable for readers.

Lastly, thanks to all my class members and all my professors especially

Yohannes, Kris, Carol, Branka, Lori, Arlonda, Angela, Jimeka—for the countless hours of moral support, the great discoveries (now we know that we really don’t know!), the tears, the laughs, the disappointments, and the delightful dinner nights – full of Dewey, Axelrod, Percy, Boland, Hardin, Doherty, Kalle, ….and how can I forget…the Bluefin Tuna! that kept us all together and coming back every residency! Thanks for making this such a fulfilling and rewarding journey.

xiii

Remote and On-Site Workers Knowledge Worker Productivity and Engagement: A

Comparative Study of the Effect of Virtual Intensity and Work Location Preference

Abstract

JOSEFINA MARTINEZ-AMADOR

Information technology now impacts the way people work (anytime, anywhere) as it

creates new emerging forms of work involving an almost equal distribution of virtual

(remote) and on-site (traditional office setting) knowledge workers. Organizations are

presented with challenges on how to achieve productivity and engagement with this new

blended workforce. This research focuses on developing new knowledge in three areas

associated with this challenge. First, it seeks to understand how knowledge workers

become engaged and how the mode and drivers of engagement differ between remote and

on-site workers. Second, anchoring in socio-technical systems theory, it studies the

factors that influence productivity and engagement in knowledge workers (i.e., work

location preference, leadership, ICT utilization) and the moderation and interaction

effects of virtual intensity, and how those factors compare between remote and on-site

knowledge workers. Third, this research further compares how the socio-technical factors

(ICT utilization, work location preference, leadership support, self-efficacy) impact the

full-time on-site, full-time remote and blended workers. We employ a three-part,

sequential, mixed methods study to define the factors that influence productivity and

engagement. We find that work location enjoyment has a positive effect on productivity,

xiv

and this has a more significant effect on remote workers. We also find that virtual

intensity moderates the effect of work location enjoyment on productivity, where at

higher levels of enjoyment of the location, high virtual intensity workers (remote) are

more productive than low virtual intensity (on-site). Conversely, virtual intensity

moderates the effect of work location tension and engagement, where at a higher level of

stress, high virtual intensity workers (remote) are less engaged than low virtual intensity

workers (on-site). Lastly, new insights on key differences among full-time on-site, full-

time remote and blended workers were found. Overall, the study makes novel theoretical,

methodological, and practical contributions to theories of remote workforce management.

Keywords: productivity; engagement; remote work; work location enjoyment; virtual

intensity; ICT utilization; leadership; self-efficacy!

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

Personal Research Motivation

This research is motivated through personal experience gained in my last 8–10

years as a human resources practitioner, where I have had the responsibility to lead with

management the implementation and design of remote workforce policies and practices.

Often, we have failed to provide the best strategies, mainly due to the lack of

understanding of the implications that such a complex undertaking has in the workforce

and the enterprise overall. This lack of understanding is exacerbated by the information

that management gathers from non-academic journals, which are confusing and abundant.

And in some case, by the knowledge gathering from academic literature, which is

conflicting and complex to understand, given the divergent schools of thought in the

field. This, in addition to the unprecedented invasion of remote work technologies that

create a rapidly evolving workplace, makes it more difficult for managers to implement

these remote workforce programs.

The fact is that the workplace is changing dramatically, and work is no longer

restrained by physical locations or time, mainly driven by the pervasive introduction of

ICT remote work technology. This has resulted in the introduction of new work

arrangements where employees are presented with a variety of alternatives to work from

home or any place outside of their traditional office settings. Even more recently,

managers are seeing remote work arrangements that vary in terms of the virtual intensity

(the degree or amount of time that the employee works virtually or remotely), adding

chaos to a system that is far away from being under reasonable control. This dynamic is

changing the paradigms in the way that leaders and HR think about managing and leading

this new workplace and its workforce. And while employees have been provided with

new tools and work policies to be able to execute their work under the new virtual

environment, and managers have been given new guidance as far as how to manage these

new work arrangements, my view is that little consideration has been given to understand

what are the implication of these changes, associated with a worker’s ability to maintain

productivity and engagement levels (i.e., pervasive utilization of ICT technology,

working effectively from a distance, and without the physical presence of supervision or

the presence of their co-workers).

In order to maximize the productivity and engagement of the workforce,

management and HR need to recognize whether the workplace is truly different from the

one bound by physical location and fixed time, where employees have access to various

kinds of technology to support their jobs, and where they can conduct their work across

different locations anywhere, anytime—the possibility exists that the nature and level of

productivity and engagement will evolve. My intent of this research is to bring new

knowledge to this field. I seek to augment theory to current conceptual models of how

organizations should approach the implementation of remote work practices in the

workplace, and what considerations should be given to the utilization of technology,

leadership, individual motivations like the workers’ work preferences, as well as remote

work policy design.

Problem of Practice

The U.S. workplace is different than it was ten or even five years ago. The

changes are countless: economic changes, globalization, technology evolution, and the

unstoppable impact of a multigenerational workforce, to name a few. One of the most

overwhelming and complex changes of all the time is the entrance of remote workers in

the workplace. Most current research data shows that remote workers would grow to 63

million (43% of the U.S. knowledge worker population) by 2016 (Deloitte Development

LLC, 2015 ). Research shows that flexible (ICT) tools, leadership, and virtual work

alternatives play a major role in employee satisfaction and retention (Deloitte Digital

Workplace Report, 2015). Forty-six percent of companies that allow telework say it has

reduced attrition and improved productivity which is creating job satisfaction in

employees (Global Workplace Analytics, 2012). According to Telework Research

Network (Lister & Harnish, 2010), across all age groups, flexible work ranked third, as

“important for happiness on the job” (p. 5).

While this new type of work arrangement has created many benefits that

researchers seem to recognize, it has also created a challenge for management and human

resources, who are left with the task to create new ways to manage this workforce so that

they can sustain the demands to continuously improve productivity, while at the same

time maintaining the workforce engagement. This seems to be a top priority for

corporations given the huge impact that the effective management of the workforce has in

the financial performance of the organization. It is also a theme that is constantly in the

center of attention for many companies like Yahoo, Cisco, IBM, and other recognized

firms (Deloitte Digital Workplace Report, 2015). And while many of them continue to

drive acceptance of remote work practices, there are many that are retracting themselves

from these programs given the concerns of not being able to maintain the same level of

productivity in the remote workforce in a comparative way to the on-site workforce. On

the other hand, work engagement, defined as “a positive, fulfilling work-related state of

mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication and absorption” (Schaufeli, Salanova,

González-Romá, & Bakker, 2002: 74) seems to be the second concern from management

(Bersin & Associates, 2012). Most recent data shows that workforce engagement in the

U.S. has remained unchanged since 2013 (Hewitt, 2015), and they also report that,

especially in the remote workforce, drivers of engagement are under-researched. In

addition, a more recent concern has been the appearance of more diversified types of

virtual intensity, the amount of time the employee spends working from a remote location

(Wiesenfeld, Raghuram, & Garud, 1999) and different types of remote work

arrangements that are entering the workplace (Global Workplace Analytics, 2010). For

example, workers now are sometimes working from home, or sometimes from the office,

and mixing it more at their own judgment rather than this being dictated by their

employer; hence, creating a bigger challenge to understand what this does to productivity

and engagement. All of these current workplace dynamics may be an indication that the

drivers of productivity and engagement could be evolving.

Given the most recent workplace dynamics (different levels of virtual intensity in

remote work, the increase in terms of the utilization of remote work technology, the

employee’s expectations to work in a location of preference as a factor of attraction and

retention), there is confusion in the workplace as far as what are the implications of these

dynamics for productivity and engagement of the workforce. In this study, I examine the

factors that drive productivity and engagement for knowledge workers, and how these

factors compare between remote and on-site workers. Specifically, I will explore the

impact of workers’ location preference, leadership, ICT utilization, and self-efficacy to

productivity and engagement as well as what happens to productivity and engagement in

the presence of different levels of virtual intensity of remote work.

Gaps in the Research, Study Goals, and Research Questions

The literature in the field of remote work is very extensive, and it has been studied

from the multi-level perspective (Mathieu & Chen, 2010; Rousseau, 1985). For example,

some researchers have studied remote work impact to the productivity of the

organization. In a review of current literature in remote work, Shin, El Sawy, Sheng, and

Higa (2000) reported that changes in teleworker productivity were consistently of interest

to a number of studies (Di Martino & Wirth, 1990; DuBrin, 1991; Olson, 1989). Others

have studied the reasons why organizations are opting to introduce remote work (Huws,

1992), and they found indications for improved productivity, reliability and work quality

among teleworkers (Shamir & Salomon, 1985).

At the individual level, related individual characteristics have been studied.

O'Neill, Hambley, Greidanus, MacDonnell, and Kline (2009) found that there are

differences in certain personality and motivational traits related to teleworker and non-

teleworker effectiveness. In the context of communication and worker isolation, research

shows that communication among teleworkers is reduced with better collaborative

technologies (Bélanger & Allport, 2008). But at the individual level, professional

isolation among teleworkers is negatively associated with job performance and increases

with time spent on teleworking (Golden, Veiga, & Dino, 2008). In the context of job

satisfaction, Golden and Veiga (2005) investigated inconsistent findings in research on

telecommuter job satisfaction. They found a curvilinear U-shaped relationship between

the extent of telecommuting per week and job satisfaction, suggesting that certain jobs

may become more difficult to perform effectively when frequently telecommuting.

Golden (2007) found that prevalence of telecommuting is negatively associated with non-

telecommuting co-worker satisfaction; this relationship is influenced by the amount of

time co-workers telecommute, the extent of face-to-face interactions, and job autonomy.

Golden, Veiga, and Simsek (2006) found that the relationship between the extent of

telecommuting and job satisfaction was mediated by the quality of interactions in work-

oriented and family-oriented relationships.

Productivity, at the individual level, is regularly reported as a perceived benefit of

telework for organizations (Callentine, 1995; Hill, Ferris, & Märtinson, 2003; Pitt-

Catsouphes & Marchetta, 1991). Reasons cited include working at peak efficiency hours,

reducing distractions and interruptions, being in an environment conducive to increased

concentration, and reducing incidental absence (Baruch, 2000; Bélanger, 1999). Others

like Shin et al. (2000), have found that the productivity is associated more with the

engagement of the employee that tends to put more hours into working and, therefore,

produces more.

As it relates to the limited research related to the engagement of remote workers,

most of it seems to be focusing on understanding “who” is more or less engaged, but less

focus on understanding the factors associated with it and the differences between remote

and on-site. Researchers have reported that organizations are implementing teleworker

programs because of the demand from employees for more flexible work environments

and autonomy in their work (Bailey & Kurland, 2002; WorldatWork, 2011). Other

researchers’ focus has been on the impact on the employee and their research suggests

that the issues related to perceptions of workplace isolation and disengagement may also

increase (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007; WorldatWork, 2011). According to Thompson

and Caputo (2009), disengaged virtual workers are often a cited concern. WorldatWork

(2011) posits that engagement factors among teleworkers are under-researched.

In other studies focusing on the impact of remote work and remote workers, some

researchers have found that remote work was perceived to increase productivity (Harker

Martin & MacDonnell, 2012) as well as being positively related to higher levels of

perceived autonomy of employees (Harker Martin & MacDonnell, 2012). Gajendran and

Harrison (2007) found that remote work positively affects the relationship with

supervisors and negatively affects the relationship with peers. They found that remote

work lowers the worker risk to have work/family conflicts, increases job satisfaction,

reduces the turnover intent, and surprisingly, does not affect career prospects for

employees. As it relates to the impact of virtual intensity of the remote work, they found

that high-intensity telecommuting negatively impacts relationships with colleagues and

that there are some moderation effects between high-intensity telecommuter and co-

worker relationships. In other research, data shows that different remote alternatives have

proven to drive higher organizational commitment (Hunton & Norman, 2010). From the

perspective of the impact of self-efficacy on remote work, Raghuram, Garud, Wiesenfeld,

and Gupta (2001) report that self-efficacy has a significant influence in determining

telecommuter adjustment to remote working and confirmed moderation effects of the

extent of telecommuting between telecommuter self-efficacy and adjustment to

telecommuting, as well as confirmed moderation effects of the extent of telecommuting

between telecommuter self-efficacy and structural behavior. Because self-efficacy is

being confirmed to be a good predictor of employee performance, this has been studied

more closely in the remote work field research. Most recently, Staples developed a self-

efficacy construct to measure the worker ICT Self-Efficacy Construct (Staples, Hulland,

& Higgins, 1999).

Gaps in the Research

Despite the amount of research that exists in the field, there are limited

comparative studies that address the most current factors that drive or limit productivity

and engagement. In fact, there are no empirical studies that address the impact, in an

integrated manner of the use of technology that exists today in the workplace, workers’

work location preference, the impact of leadership support and how worker self-efficacy

influences productivity and engagement in light of this new and different workplace

dynamic. And, there is no study that actually provides answers to the question on the

implications of the different levels of virtual intensity to productivity and engagement of

the workforce.

While there is research that confirms that ICT utilization is an enabler of remote

work, there is no updated research that has evaluated the impact given most current

technologies (video, intranet document sharing, and internal employee chats) on

productivity and engagement. From the perspective of work location preference, there is

a lack of explanation on what is the impact, either positively or negative, of the

employee’s experience of enjoyment or tension of the work location. And more

importantly, the hidden impact on the worker’s productivity and engagement. In fact, to-

date, no construct exists that can help to measure this impact. As it relates to the impact

of virtual intensity, there is a lack of explanation in regards the impact of the different

levels of virtual intensity, in the presence of technology, leadership, the employee’s work

location preference, and the worker’s self-efficacy, and how organizations can take

advantage of the joint optimization of the socio-technical organizational resources. In

summary, there are limited comparative studies that address the factors that drive or limit

productivity and engagement with an integrated approach (socio-technical theory) as the

kind that I will conduct in this research.

In this study, I seek to build an encompassing model based on how human

resource practitioners can improve the management and implementation of remote work

practices. I anchor the framework of my research on Trist and Bamforth (1951) and Katz

and Kahn’s (1966) classical work of socio-technical systems theory. Socio-technical

systems theory incorporates four elements that are critical to transforming work systems

into outputs: technology, task, social structure, and people-related factors. The theory

posits that these subsystems continually and jointly interact with each other to produce

work systems outcomes (Trist & Bamforth, 1951). For the purposes of this research, I

limit the focus to the key dimensions that prevail in the workplace today, using as our

unit of analysis—the knowledge worker. We look into related theories and uses of

technology, dimensions of personality, and personnel characteristics (intrinsic

motivation, self-efficacy and job engagement), and organizational factors (leadership) as

major antecedents to productivity. We also look into the effect of some organizational/

work design factors like the virtual intensity of the work and the impact of the knowledge

worker self-efficacy. We further describe our research focus below.

Study Goals and Research Questions

Given the entrance in the workplace of new emerging forms of work involving an

almost equal distribution of remote (virtual environment) and on-site (traditional office

setting) knowledge workers, organizations are presented with challenges on how to

achieve productivity and engagement with this new blended workforce. Our research

focuses on developing new knowledge in three areas associated with this challenge. First,

I seek to understand how knowledge workers become engaged and how the mode and

drivers of engagement differ between remote and on-site workers. Second, anchored in

socio-technical systems theory, I study the factors that influence productivity and

engagement in knowledge workers (i.e., work location preference, leadership, ICT

utilization) and the moderation and interaction effects of high and low levels of virtual

intensity. Third, I expand the study with a comparative analysis to further understand the

impact of the drivers of productivity and engagement, using a different types of worker

categories: full-time on-site, full-time remote, and blended workers. In addition, given the

changes that workers are experiencing and coping with, working either remotely, on-site

or in a blended category, we explored the impact of the worker self-efficacy on

productivity and engagement. Last, I integrate the findings and elaborate on the

contributions, evaluating the academic and practical implications, as well as highlighting

the limitations of the thesis.

To advance the understanding of these phenomena, the research questions that I

address in this thesis are:

1)! How do remote workers become engaged/productive and are the mode and

drivers different from on-site workers?

2)! What factors influence productivity and engagement for on-site and remote

workers?

a.! What happens when the employee experiences enjoyment or stress/tension

in the work location? Does it matter?

b.! What is the impact of ICT remote work tools/ utilization and leadership?

c.! What is the impact of virtual intensity?

3)! Given the different categories, the full-time remote, full-time on-site, and

blended workers entering the workplace?

a.! What are the differences of the degree of impact of the factors that impact

productivity and engagement, amongst the three different categories?

b.! Given the changes that workers are experiencing and coping with,

working either remotely, on-site or in a blended category, what is the

impact of the worker self-efficacy on productivity and engagement?

This thesis employs a three-part, sequential, mixed methods study approach to

defining the factors that influence productivity and engagement. Research questions

addressed in each phase are shown in Figure 1.

With all the new dynamics emerging in the workplace, it is imperative that

integrated research is carried out to further inform how organizations should evolve their

human resource practices to create value and increase competitiveness. In this research, I

seek to understand the changes in the nature of the engagement of the workforce, and

what factors are more critical given the entrance of new forms of work, where some

knowledge workers will continue to work in an office, but others will be working

remotely. Just as technologies invite us to be more innovative in our approaches to

customers and business processes, new frontiers have been erected regarding how to

reimagine the workplace. These new workforce dynamics provide organizations with

opportunities to rethink productivity, engagement, leadership, the impact of the use of

technology, work processes, and communication practices. The challenge for

management is to work out how to best match employees, work processes, human

resource practices, and technologies to create value in the new era. It is my intent that this

research will open such new vistas for academia, general management, and human

resources professionals by augmenting and discovering new knowledge that can enable

organizations to advance their strategies to confront this major workplace dynamic.

Figure 1. Research Questions Addressed in Each Phase of the Study

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW, THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK & RESEARCH METHODS

In this chapter, I examine the key theoretical underpinnings informing this thesis

and the different studies, the theoretical framework, and research methods. First, I

provide a theoretical definition of the unit of analysis, the knowledge worker. Second, I

provide a review of remote workforce theories and its evolution as well as some

informative related theory in the field such as nomadic work, virtual work, etc. Because

the theoretical framework is anchored in socio-technical systems theory, a specific

section is dedicated to the introduction of this theory. Third, a review follows, of the most

relevant theories that are associated with productivity and engagement, and more

specifically, the theories that are part of the theoretical conceptual models of the two

quantitative studies of this research. Lastly, I will close with a description of the research

methods. Next, I review selective literature of previous research in remote work.

Remote Work Literature & Previous Research Review

This section provides an overview of selective literature and theories related to

remote work. This includes a review of the unit of analysis and the definition of

knowledge workers is provided, a historical review of remote work and an overview of

the advantages and disadvantages existent today in current literature. And lastly, a meta-

list of the key approaches and dimensions on how remote work has been studied before

(see Table 1).

Knowledge Worker

Knowledge workers are those employees who have a responsibility for exploring

and generating ideas and concepts rather than concentrating solely on implementing or

managing existing processes or operations within the organization. The term was first

coined by Peter Drucker in 1957. In 1999, he suggested, “the most valuable asset of a

21st-century institution, whether business or non-business, will be its knowledge workers

and their productivity” (Drucker, 1999: 79). Generally speaking, knowledge workers

have high degrees of expertise, education, or experience, and the primary purpose of their

jobs involves the creation, distribution, or application of knowledge. Sunassee and Sewry

(2002) said, “knowledge grows like organisms, with data serving as food to be

assimilated rather than merely stored” (as cited in Terry, 2007: 39). In 1963, Popper

stated there is always an increasing need for knowledge to grow and progress continually,

whether tacit (as described by Polanyi) or explicit. Toffler (1990) observed that typical

knowledge workers (especially Research and Development (R&D) scientists and

engineers) in the age of knowledge economy must have some system at their disposal to

create, process, and enhance their own knowledge. In some cases, they would also need

to manage the knowledge of their co-workers. Nonaka (1991) described knowledge as the

fuel for innovation but was concerned that many managers failed to understand how

knowledge could be leveraged. Companies are more like living organisms than machines,

he argued, and most viewed knowledge as a static input to the corporate machine. He

advocated a view of knowledge as renewable and changing, and that knowledge workers

were the agents for that change. He believed knowledge-creating companies should be

focused primarily on the task of innovation.

Given the definition of knowledge workers, this worker category seems to be

more suitable for the purposes of our research. In addition, I found support for this

decision during the literature review. Based on recent research from The Work

Foundation Organization (2009: http://www.theworkfoundation.com), their findings

show that those with more knowledge-based jobs have greater flexibility than those in

less knowledge-based jobs, at least as far as a choice over hours is concerned and the

ability (whether willing or not) to work at home. Therefore, I chose to focus on the

knowledge worker as the main unit of analysis across the three studies.

The Beginning of Remote Work

Although telework (or remote work) was foreseen as early as 1950, it did not

become possible until the entrance of personal computers and portable modems in the

early 1970s. In 1973, the term “telecommuting” was introduced to emphasize that

telework could replace the daily commute (Nilles, 1994). In the beginning, corporations

considered telework as a way to make them less dependent on fuel and oil, especially in

the fuel crisis in the early and mid-1970s (Tolbert & Simons, 1994). The number of

teleworkers then grew to more than ten-fold in a decade, to about 11.1 million

(Shellenbarger, 1994, Jan 1).

Several factors have contributed to the emergence of telecommuting. First,

numerous companies are trying to lower the costs of office space. Second, faced with

increased competition, many companies adopt extended workdays and flexible work

schedules to respond better to customer needs and to retain and attract skilled employees.

Third, computer and telecommunications technologies are becoming increasingly

affordable and cost-effective, which enables a strong penetration of ICT in the

organization (Brimsek & Bender, 1995). Remote working (also known as telework) has

grown from its modest beginnings in the early 1970s to achieve an unprecedented level

today. Most recently in the U.S., while many conjectured that telecommuting would

decline during the recession, it actually grew by nearly 16% from 2008 to 2012 (Global

Workplace Analytics, 2012).

Defining Remote Work

The terms remote work, telework, and telecommuting are used interchangeably,

and it is a quite accepted practice in this area of research. In 1975, Jack Nilles (1975) was

the first scholar to coin the term “telecommuting”. In 2002, Bailey and Kurland (2002)

defined it as, “working outside the conventional workplace and communicating with it by

way of telecommunications or computer-based technology” (p. 384). In another recent

literature review (Bailey & Kurland, 2002), and meta-analysis (Gajendran & Harrison,

2007), these authors further expanded their definition where telework is defined as the

substitution of communication technology for work-related travel, and can include paid

work from home, a satellite office, a telework center or any other workstation outside of

the main office for at least one day per work week (Verbeke, Schulz, Greidanus, &

Hambley, 2008).

Remote working or telecommuting can be defined as a “work arrangement in

which employees perform their regular work at a site other than the ordinary workplace,

supported by technological connections” (Fitzer, 1997: 65). It can be performed on a full-

or part-time basis and on a permanent or temporary basis (e.g. for one or two months or

for the duration of a specific project). Telecommuting represents an expansion of the

places and times considered auspicious for work. Three principal components of

telecommuting can be identified as utilization of ICT, link with an organization, and

delocalization of work (Pinsonneault & Boisvert, 1996).

First, telecommuting depends on the processing, manipulation, and transformation

of information. Thus, ICT represents one of the major components of telecommuting,

because it enables workers to be in constant communication with their organization and

their colleagues. Second, contrary to independent workers, telecommuters have ties with

an organization (Bailyn, 1994). Telecommuting is not limited to permanent workers, as

employees working on a contractual basis may also telecommute. However, distinctions

exist between the types of telecommuting that is prevalent in each group. Authors

generally recognize that telecommuting by contractual employees engenders a greater

number of difficulties (Huws, 1992; Ramsower, 1985). This type of telecommuting

usually includes clerical work where employees are remunerated on a piecemeal basis or,

less frequently, on an hourly basis. Third, telecommuting is not constrained by time and

space (Nilles, 1994; Olson, 1988). The delocalization of work takes four main forms:

telecommuting from home (home-based), satellite offices, neighborhood work centers,

and mobile work. Home-based telecommuting is usually performed in a dedicated area of

the worker’s place of residence. Satellite offices take the form of small organizational

affiliates generally located in proximity to residential areas where a telecommunications

link with headquarters is permanently maintained (Doswell, 1992; Nilles, 1994).

Neighborhood work centers are private information centers that possess

telecommunication tools and that are generally shared by employees from various

enterprises (Di Martino & Wirth, 1990; Nilles, 1994; Olson, 1987b).

The Positive Organizational Impact of Remote Worker

Benefits from remote working appeared early despite the limited technology as

compared to today. Solomon and Templer (1993) found that 75% of companies that have

implemented telecommuting were satisfied or very satisfied with the experience, and only

8% were dissatisfied. Remote working has been found to positively impact important

human resources (HR) indicators in the workforce. As an example, it has been shown to

reduce absenteeism and increase employee loyalty to the organization. In a study of 20

employees across 20 organizations that had either adopted telecommuting or had started

pilot projects, Olson (1987a) found that telecommuting reinforced the existing

relationship between workers and their organizations. Moreover, telecommuting was

found to allow organizations to retain employees that might otherwise have left and to

attract skilled employees who were unwilling to relocate and for whom flexibility was

important (Davenport & Pearlson, 1998; Di Martino & Wirth, 1990; Piskurich, 1996b).

Another benefit found for organizations is the improvement of productivity and

quality of work associated with telecommuting, which is probably the most cited

organizational benefit in the literature. Some telecommuting specialists evaluate the

increase in productivity to be between 15% and 50% (Alvi & McIntyre, 1993; Barthel,

1995; Baruch & Nicholson, 1997; Côté-O’Hara, 1993; Gordon & Kelly, 1986; Kirkley,

1994; Langhoff, 1996). For instance, Huws (1993) reported that telecommuters were 47%

more productive (based on evaluations from their supervisors) than their colleagues

working in the office. Furthermore, this study indicated that 25% of the work performed

by telecommuters was of higher quality than comparable work performed by “traditional”

workers. Similarly, New York Telephone reports a 43% average increase in productivity

associated with telecommuting, while Control Data Corporation estimates the

productivity gain at about 20% (Clutterbuck, 2005). A survey conducted at Northern

Telecom (Nortel) indicated that 88% of its telecommuters reported increased productivity

ranging from 10% to 22% (Froggatt, 1998). Baruch and Nicholson (1997) found that over

70% of the 62 telecommuters (managers and professionals) they studied perceived

themselves as working more effectively than in a traditional work arrangement. Several

factors can explain the increase in productivity of telecommuters: lower levels of

interference and interruptions, a work environment better tailored to specific individual

and task needs, the possibility of choosing more convenient working hours, less time

wasted commuting (Eldib & Minoli, 1995), and a stronger focus on achieving the

required results rather than simply being physically present at work (Guimaraes &

Dallow, 1999).

Studies from ten years ago show that telecommuting allows organizations to

reduce certain expenses. Typically, lower costs can be realized by reducing office space,

energy consumption, parking spaces, and overcrowding of offices. For example, in the

U.S., IBM reported saving US$75 million by selling buildings and reducing its leased

office space (McCune, 1998). Ernst & Young was able to save US$25 million annually

by reducing office space by two million square feet (Monnette, 1998). At AT&T, the

alternative work initiative is estimated to have saved the company US$460,000 annually

(Apgar, 1997).

Telecommuting also allows greater organizational flexibility and a better capacity

to respond quickly to unexpected events. In fact, several organizations use telecommuting

to decentralize their operations and to organize them into networks. Among the several

benefits identified in a survey of 252 IS department heads (Ruppel & Harrington, 1995)

was the organization’s ability to continue operating in emergency situations (Fitzer,

1997). For instance, following a series of earthquakes, many Californian companies

relied on telecommuting to continue their daily operations and have made these work

arrangements permanent due to their initial success (Eldib & Minoli, 1995; Fitzer, 1997).

Organizations may also increase their flexibility by hiring workers under various

contractual arrangements (e.g. on a temporary basis). Furthermore, telecommuting

enables an organization to provide flexible working hours for its employees. Finally,

telecommuting allows for a more efficient usage of the organization’s information

system, particularly during non-office hours (e.g. at night and on weekends) (Gordon &

Kelly, 1986; Hamilton, 1987).

The Negative Organizational Impact of Remote Worker

Remote working can have a negative impact on organizations. Often, the

employees who are better suited for telecommuting (i.e., motivated, well organized, and

requiring little supervision) are those that companies would rather retain on-site (Johnson,

1997). In addition, telecommuting can reduce organizational synergy. Coordination and

motivation of employees, valorization of a common culture, and feelings of belonging are

much more difficult to sustain in a telecommuting context (Davenport & Pearlson, 1998).

In a study aimed at identifying the factors underlying corporate resistance to

telecommuting in the United Kingdom, Gray, Hudson, and Gordon (1993) found that

over 35% of the 115 senior personnel managers surveyed believed that telecommuting

threatened corporate structure and identity. A second negative impact is the

discontentment of managers in charge of telecommuters. This often arises due to

managers’ difficulty in adapting their management styles to the new reality imposed by

telecommuting (Christensen, 1992). Third, the security of transmitting corporate data via

telecommunication networks concerns managers (Gray et al., 1993; Greenstein &

Feinman, 1999; Katz, 1987). Finally, it is often difficult to objectively evaluate the

financial benefits of telecommuting programs (Alvi & McIntyre, 1993; Doswell, 1992).

Remote Work in Virtual Teams

Virtual teamwork is one current topic in the literature review and has been studied

from many different angles, starting with virtual team antecedents to performance and

team characteristics. In particular, the performance of virtual teams has become an

important factor for determining satisfaction of team members. Studies have also linked

virtual team attributes, like team cohesion, to objective measures of team performance

(e.g. Beal, Cohen, Burke, & McLendon (2003); Evans & Dion (1991); Gully, Devine, &

Whitney (1995); Copper & Mullen (1994); Prapavessis & Carron (1997); and Wech,

Mossholder, Steel, & Bennett (1998)), though in most cases, the relationship reported

was weaker than expected. Indeed, researchers have suggested that there may be

important moderators of the relationship between cohesion and objective performance

(e.g., norms regarding task focus; see Seashore, 1954). Despite the lack of theoretical and

empirical support for the connection between team cohesion and objective performance,

teams that are more cohesive are more likely to believe that they are performing better.

Recent research has demonstrated a strong relationship between team cohesion and a

team’s perception of its own performance (Chang & Bordia, 2001; Jung & Sosik, 2002),

although the cross-sectional design of both studies makes it impossible to tease out the

true nature of the relationship between the variables.

The availability of a flexible and configurable base infrastructure is one of the

main advantages of virtual teams. Anderson, Lau, Segal, and Bishop (2007) suggested

that the effective use of communication, especially during the early stages of the team’s

development, plays an equally important role in gaining and maintaining trust. Virtual

R&D teams which members do not work at the same time or place (Stoker, Looise,

Fisscher, & Jong, 2001) often face tight schedules and a need to start quickly and perform

instantly (Munkvold & Zigurs, 2007). To this end, virtual teams reduce time-to-market

(May & Carter, 2001). Lead-time or time-to-market has generally been admitted to be

one of the most important keys to success in manufacturing companies (Sorli, Stokic,

Gorostiza, & Campos, 2006). Clearly, the rise of network technologies has made the use

of virtual teams feasible (Beranek & Martz, 2005), which is clearly one of the advantages

that enables the performance at the individual level when working remotely.

While some authors recognize that virtual teams may allow people to collaborate

more productively at a distance, others claim that there are still serious disadvantages that

need to be addressed. One of them is the lack of personal interaction. Some researchers

claim that there is no substitute for personal interaction to establish trust between

colleagues. These researchers go further to show that personal interaction was still the

most reliable and effective way to review and revise a new idea (Gassmann & Von

Zedtwitz, 2003). As a drawback, virtual teams are particularly vulnerable to mistrust,

communication breakdowns, conflicts, and power struggles (Rosen, Furst, & Blackburn,

2007).

Finally, organizational and cultural barriers are another serious impediment to the

effectiveness of virtual teams. Many managers are uncomfortable with the concept of a

virtual team because successful management of virtual teams may require new methods

of supervision (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999).

Distributed Work Arrangements

Many large organizations have adopted DWA (distributed work arrangements) as

a new option to increase workers’ productivity while reducing costs. Due to the high

demand in the workplace, there have been several research efforts in defining

relationships among factors of distributed work arrangements.

There are many different forms of alternative workplaces, as discussed by

Gilleard and Rees (1998). They outline two basic types of alternative workplaces: on-site

workplaces and off-site workplaces. Within on-site workplaces, there are four main types,

including free address, hoteling, group address, and project team environments. For off-

site working, there are four main types: telecommuting, satellite officing, remote

telecenters, and virtual officing.

Various authors have defined, at the organizational level, the multiple types of on-

and off-site work settings. They define a workforce as “distributed” if it meets any of the

following three conditions: (1) individual workers operate in different physical locations;

(2) asynchronous communications and interactions are utilized for most normal

interchanges, even with colleagues in the next office; and (3) individual workers are not

all employed by the same firm/organization or are working within distinctively different

parts of the same parent organization (Ware & Grantham, 2003: 3).

Another definition of DWA by Venkatesh and Vitalari (1992) is an arrangement

of “decentralized organizational structure where the core organization distributes a

portion of its functions to a remote site” (p. 2). Various work settings in which workers

do not have a permanent workspace on an organization’s premises are also called

“distributed work arrangements.” Distributed work arrangements include various types of

alternative working, rather than traditional work at an assigned workstation within the

office.

With the creation of the computer in the mid-twentieth century, work processes

have evolved from production to knowledge focus. This subtle change is not fully

appreciated by workers and managers who still utilize production management

methodologies. New management skills and expectations are needed for knowledge age

workers and work processes. Hinds (2002) mentioned that “in distributed work, there is

considerable uncertainty about others’ behaviors” (p. 311). In distributed work settings,

Pancucci (1995) suggested that managers had to be available for coaching remote

workers and had to hold regular meetings and review sessions with distributed workers.

Workspace decision-making should contribute to the strategic and financial concerns of

an organization and provide a productive work environment across the organizational

network.

The unexplored linkages and trade-offs between conventional workspaces and

information and communication technology (ICT) create several risks in the process of

workspace decision-making. These are summarized as several key risk issues involved in

the implementation of ICT in distributed workspaces: maintaining organizational culture;

keeping the work-life balance; workforce management; brands building; and security.

Harrison (2002) indicated that today’s enterprises needed assistance in developing and

implementing a distributed work strategy, even down to the level of workplace design

and management. The challenge of workspace allocation in a distributed setting is to

provide and maintain productive work environments for people across the whole

organizational network. People are the most important assets of any enterprise. Hence,

distributed workspace decision making should be human-centered, in order to satisfy

people’s social and psychological needs. It is now critical to come up with

comprehensive solutions that can help organizations create high-value and effective

distributed work arrangements supporting the organization’s needs in the knowledge age.

Nomadic Work

Over the past number of years, new forms of work have emerged and developed,

particularly in the service and education sector, and, more broadly, with regards to

information work. One of the key characteristics of such forms of work, and particularly

information work, is the potential (and often the need) for nomadic practices since

workers mainly deal with something that can be represented digitally and taken to or

accessed from different locations. In other words, work activities in certain professional

contexts can and often must be detached from stable premises, and performed when and

where it suits the workers’ needs (Davis 2002). In fact, increasing attention is being paid

to what is here called modern nomadicity, and that involves engaging with work activities

across different locations based on the availability of the resources that are necessary for

accomplishing such activities (de Carvalho et al. 2011).

Several studies have addressed issues related to nomadic practices and the design

of technologies to support those involved with them, addressing a broad range of issues

varying according to the particular field of inquiry within which they were conducted.

For instance, in Ubiquitous Computing and Business Information Systems, researchers

have been addressing the development of mobile and pervasive technologies and

technological affordances, which can be translated into specific performances when used

in individual and organizational practices (Gorlenko & Merrick, 2003; Kleinrock, 1996;

Sørensen, 2011; Weiser, 1993). In turn, researchers have been concerned with the

usability of portable devices and the development of methods for accurately assessing it

(Coursaris & Kim, 2006; Johansson, Karlsson, & Stough, 2006; Weiss, 2002). In CSCW,

the focus has been directed towards the use of computing technologies to mediate social

and collaborative activities in and across different locations and towards an

understanding of how different spaces are inhabited and transformed in places as work

gets accomplished, i.e., a concern with issues to do with articulation and mobilization

work as well as with place-making activities (Rossitto, 2009).

Different frames may be applied to understanding nomadicity (Rossitto, 2009).

Four prominent perspectives can be found in the literature, and they have to do with a

technology-centered, practice-centered, place-centered, and work-life boundary-centered

approach to define, explore, and understand nomadicity and the issues surrounding it

(Ciolfi & Pinatti de Carvalho, 2014). These frames are not mutually exclusive. There are

overlaps between them and studies that prioritize one of these views may address issues

of the other three. However, most of them address nomadicity in the same sense, i.e., that

of accomplishing work in and across different locations with the help of computing

technologies, even though not all of them use “nomadicity” as the overall term to

describe this. Nevertheless, frames identified by the authors are practical categories that

represent a variety of concerns that characterize the study of nomadicity and the issues

that have been privileged in particular subsets of the literature.

From our literature in nomadic work, considered by many as an extreme form of

mobile work, is becoming increasingly prevalent in organizations. Yet so far there has

not been enough research attention on the particular challenges that nomadic workers

face in order to design support for their work practices.

In Table 1, I present a sample of studies conducted from 1975 and onward. The

table reveals a number of studies that address remote work. Our list is presented

chronologically, then by authorship, type of study, key focus area and findings. While in

earlier studies researchers seemed more concerned about the rate of innovation and

adoption, gradually they became more interested in the larger implications to the worker

evaluating advantages and disadvantages of telework, individual characteristics impact,

type of work more suited for telework. Work today draws upon a wide range of theories

and levels of analysis, addressing phenomena that are becoming more critical in the field,

as the impact of the intensity of the remote work and the need to move from individual

remote workers towards understanding the larger effects of remote workforce

management.

Table 1. Meta-List of Existent Remote Work Research

Key Areas of Focus

Year Author Title Type of Study Results/findings Linked Theories

in the Research/Key Themes

Communication and Teleworking

2015 Smith, Patmos, and Pitts (2015)

Communication and Teleworking: A Study of Communication Channel Satisfaction, Personality, and Job Satisfaction for Teleworking Employees

Quantitative Study This study examines teleworkers’ job satisfaction related to the use of and satisfaction with a variety of communication channels and workers’ personality type. U.S. teleworkers (N = 384) completed an online survey and self-reported on dimensions of communication channel satisfaction, job satisfaction, and personality. Results indicated that extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness are positively correlated with job satisfaction. Additionally, significant moderating effects were found for the relationship between openness and phone and video communication, and agreeableness and phone communication on job satisfaction. Findings from this study yield important practical implications for organizations including suggestions for optimizing communication satisfaction for employees of differing personality types and recommendations to help organizations effectively hire and retain teleworkers.

Communication channel satisfaction, job satisfaction, and personality (extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness )

Technology as a Mediator

2014 Ciolfi and Pinatti de Carvalho (2014)

Work Practices, Nomadicity and the Mediational Role of Technology

Literature Review and Recommendations

Extends the understanding of nomadicity and goes beyond the categorization of studies of nomadicity. It supports the view on the need to see nomadicity as a dynamic and emergent concept, where technologies, infrastructures, locations, organizational needs and constraints and personal strategies are intertwined in complex ecologies of practice.

Nomadic Work, Modern Nomadicity, Nomadic Computing (all technologies that enable mobile work)

Multilevel Framework

2013 Bélanger, Watson- Manheim, and Swan (2013)

Multi-level socio- technical systems telecommuting framework

Multilevel Framework Using Literature Review

Building on STS theory, a multi-level telecommuting framework was developed, which proposes theoretical relationships that address the conceptualization issues found in telecommuting research: namely, (1) telecommuting and its ICT artefacts as the context or environment in which work is performed instead of just as an aspect of the actual work itself; (2) telecommuting as a multi-level concept whose impacts are often realized at the individual level of analysis but also have influences and outcomes across levels of analysis and (3) telecommuting as a concept whose antecedents and outcomes are affected by the passing of time. The theoretical framework can be used as a lens for evaluating past telecom- muting research, and developing new areas of inquiries in telecommuting.

Socio-Technical Systems Theory, multi-level analysis, different aspects of remote work theory

Key Areas of Focus

Year Author Title Type of Study Results/findings Linked Theories

in the Research/Key Themes

Intensity of Remote Work, psychological effects to workers

2008 Gajendran and Harrison (2007)

The Good, the Bad, and the Unknown About Telecommuting: Meta-Analysis of Psychological Mediators and Individual Consequences

Meta-Analysis Quantitative-study

A theoretical framework and meta-analysis of 46 studies in natural settings involving 12,883 employees. Telecommuting had small but mainly beneficial effects on proximal outcomes, such as perceived autonomy and (lower) work–family conflict. Importantly, telecommuting had no generally detrimental effects on the quality of workplace relationships. Telecommuting also had beneficial effects on more distal outcomes, such as job satisfaction, performance, turnover intent, and role stress. These beneficial consequences appeared to be at least partially mediated by perceived autonomy. Also, high-intensity telecommuting (more than 2.5 days a week) accentuated telecommuting’s beneficial effects on work–family conflict but harmed relationships with coworkers. Results provide building blocks for a more complete theoretical and practical treatment of telecommuting.

Remote Work Intensity, Perceived Autonomy, Work-Family Conflict, Job Satisfaction, Turn Over Intent, Role Stress, Relationship Quality

Virtual Teams 2013 Leonardi, Bailey, and Barley (2013)

The digital organization: How virtuality impacts the way teams work.

Article Discusses different types of virtual work arrangements that exist today and the impact that various types of virtual work can have on organizational processes and structures. Taking an example from the U.S. automobile industry, the authors highlight how a traditional industry must come to terms with the new organizational challenges occasioned by today's digitally mediated relationships. This case offers cautionary advice and lessons for other organizations that would turn to the virtual in the hope of reducing costs by replacing humans and objects with data and representations.

Impact of Virtual work, virtual teams, organization structure

Telecommuting Effectiveness/pro ductivity

2012 Noonan and Glass (2012)

The hard truth about telecommuting

Quantitative Study using Longitudinal data and US Census Current Population. /use of descriptive statistics

Telecommuting has not permeated the American workplace, and where it has become commonly used, it is not helpful in reducing work-family conflicts; telecommuting appears, instead, to have become instrumental in the general expansion of work hours, facilitating workers’ needs for additional work time beyond the standard workweek and/or the ability of employers to increase or intensify work demands among their salaried employees.

No theory but a series of methods applied to analyze remote worker working hours

Key Areas of Focus

Year Author Title Type of Study Results/findings Linked Theories

in the Research/Key Themes

Telecommuting Effectiveness/pro ductivity

2012 Harker Martin and MacDonnell (2012)

Is telework effective for organizations? A meta-analysis of empirical research on perceptions of telework and organizational outcomes

Meta- Analysis/Quantitative Study

Review and meta-analysis of 32 correlations from empirical studies find that there is a small but positive relationship between telework and organizational outcomes. Telework is perceived to increase productivity, secure retention, strengthen organizational commitment, and to improve performance within the organization. In other words, it is indeed beneficial for organizations.

Organizational Commitment, Performance, Retention, Intention to Leave

Multilevel Framework

2004 Swan, Belanger, and Watson- Manheim (2004)

Theoretical Foundations for Distributed Work: Multilevel, Incentive Theories to Address Current Dilemmas

Conceptual Framework These applications of incentive theory revealed three important findings: (1) distributed work dilemmas can benefit by applying incentive theories; (2) the conceptual framework’s multilevel perspective revealed that, over time, incentives at one level of analysis can be outweighed by disincentives from other levels of analysis; and (3) incentive strategies, such as reward and compensation plans, need to be studied in the context of distributed work environments.

Incentive-related theories that can be used as possible foundations for future distributed work research include Hertzberg’s theory explicit and implicit motivation, expectancy theory, managerial control theory, group process theories, socio- technical systems theory, and resource allocation theories.

productivity 2004 Westfall (2004) Does Telecommuting Really Increase productivity?

Article Analyzes telecommuting and its impact on productivity. Concludes that telecommuting does not deliver, claiming that otherwise many organizations would have increased the number of teleworkers already.

Different related theories and studies in telework

Key Areas of Focus

Year Author Title Type of Study Results/findings Linked Theories

in the Research/Key Themes

Telework Research Review

2002 Bailey and Kurland (2002)

A review of telework research: findings, new directions, and lessons for the study of modern work

Literature Review and Recommendations

Authors review current research and recommend future research. The recommendations are 1) Scholars should expand the research lens beyond individual teleworkers. Doing so would shift attention from the question of who teleworks to the larger question of whom the practice of telework affects. 2) Given the reality of how people telework, scholars should reconsider why employees work away from the office. Under a new conceptualization, telework might come to be seen as one of many mechanisms individuals enact to cope with the demands of the modern workplace. Additionally, a new conceptualization of telework could prompt scholars to recognize potential out- comes overlooked in the current literature. 3) New studies should emphasize theory-building and forge links to existing organizational theories. Such efforts would be instrumental in sorting out what happens when people telework.

Grounded theory, Telework Research, Job Suitability for Telework, Advantages of Telework, Profile of Who Teleworks, Reasons on Why Individuals Work, What happens when people telework.

Technology Impact

2001 Raghuram et al. (2001)

Technology enabled work: The role of self- efficacy in determining telecommuter adjustment and structuring behavior

Quantitative Study The results of this study suggest that telecommuter self- efficacy is positively associated with telecommuters reported adjustment and structuring behavior. Furthermore, the positive relationship between telecommuter self-efficacy and the two dependent variables is stronger among those who telecommute more extensively. Their findings regarding the interactive relationship between self-efficacy and extent of telecommuting reinforce the critical role that self-efficacy plays as a means of aiding individuals in coping with the most challenging telecommuting arrangements—those that involve full-time telecommuting. Furthermore, the results draw attention to the relevance and importance of structuring behavior as a manifestation of employee proactivity in the increasingly prevalent context of remote work.

Self-Efficacy, Newcomer Adjustment Theory (Newcomer adjustment (adapted from Feldman, 1981), Structuring Behavior Theory

Telework Adoption

2001 Daniels, Lamond, and Standen (2001)

Teleworking: Frameworks for Organizational Research

Conceptual Framework Integrates current literature of remote work, and links this to a theoretical framework using Neo-Institutional Theory

Neo-Institutional Theory, Mental Models, Culture, Organizational Change, Adoption as a process in support of innovation, Principal-agent Theory, Organizational Design, ICT utilization, Institutional Strategy, Conceptualization of Telework

Key Areas of Focus

Year Author Title Type of Study Results/findings Linked Theories

in the Research/Key Themes

Adoption (using Innovation Theory)

2000 Ruppel and Harrington (1995)

Telework: An innovation where nobody is getting on the band- wagon

Literature Review and Recommendation

Authors argue that organizations don't see telework as an innovations strategy. As an administrative innovation and a process-oriented change that responds to internal or external organization stresses or opportunities, telework requires an effort to react to a qualitatively different, postindustrial environment that forces frequent and faster organizational innovations [9]. Taking an innovation approach permits gaining an understanding of relations between organizational factors and telework. It also offers rich process theories that facilitate the cumulative progress of telework research based on different research streams.

Innovation Theory

Telework Research Review

2000 Shin et al. (2000) Telework: Existing Research and Future Directions

Literature Review and Recommendations

A review of the relevant literature and a characterization of telework were conducted from 3 different angles: the research methodology, the focus of existing telework studies, and the research paradigm. First, an overall lack of robust research methodology was found in many studies. Second, although telework is an organizational phenomenon, disproportionate attention has been given to teleworker- related personal issues. Finally, the current telework paradigm was discovered to be characterized by suitability- based planning that selects appropriate persons and tasks and by ad-hoc implementation in response to local needs. Authors suggest that future research could be enriched with more rigorous research methodology, more balanced focus for studies, and more flexible perspectives in the research paradigm.

Theories of freedom and control, role conflict models and human motivation, the attitude– behavior relation, and a job characteristics model, Contingency Theory, Agency Theory, Innovation Theory,

Innovation 1999 Reichwald and Möslein (1999)

Telework Strategies: The Diffusion of a Workplace Innovation (Multilevel Strategy Model For The Diffusion Of Telework As Workplace Innovation)

Results of the conceptual study conclude that an innovation path starting from workplace-oriented telework pilots, through process redesign and overall organizational innovation to long-term visions of societal changes in the organization. Discusses 3 Levels of Implementation: Workplace Innovation, Process Innovation, and Organizational Innovation.

Practicability term, Innovation Theory, The Innovation Curve Applied to Telework

Key Areas of Focus

Year Author Title Type of Study Results/findings Linked Theories

in the Research/Key Themes

Telework program success, Individual Characteristics

1999 Guimaraes and Dallow (1999)

Empirically testing the benefits, problems, and success factors for telecommuting programs.

Quantitative This research examines what organizations should do to accomplish success with their telework programs. A thorough survey of the relevant literature was undertaken to exhaustively identify the many potential benefits, problems, and the proposed success factors for telecommuting programs in practice. Using the benefits derived from telecommuting programs and their impact on company performance as the measures of program success, six main success factors were empirically tested with a sample of 316 telecommuters from eighteen companies. The results corroborate at least partially the importance of carefully considering the characteristics of supervisors, employees, tasks, and work environments, as well as management support and problems encountered, for the success of telecommuting programs.

Success factors of telecommuting: Autonomy, Self- discipline, Highly skilled (self-efficacy), ICT Skills, Positive Attitudes to Telecommuting, Prefers Little social interaction

Advantages and Challenges

1999 Kurland and Bailey (2000)

Telework: The advantages and challenges of working here, there, anywhere, and anytime.

Compilation of Theory Kurland, N.B., and Bailey, D.E. 1999. Telework: The advantages and challenges of working here, there, anywhere, and anytime. Organizational Dynamics, 28(2): 53-68.

Work and family/ life balance of the employees or family conflicts, longer working hours, and feelings of social isolation.

Individual Characteristics

1998 Baruch and Nicholson (1997); Davenport and Pearlson (1998); Fitzer (1997);

Home, sweet work: Requirements for effective home working.

Qualitative Study Qualitative interviews with forty-one male and twenty-one female professional and sales teleworkers examined their experiences of telework. Family, personal, organization and work type contexts that contributed to effective teleworking were identified. Most were satisfied with teleworking, felt their work performance improved but were spending the same or greater number of hours working. Teleworkers reported improved family relations but increase in family stress. Space and intrusion into the family were identified as sources of stress. Self-management and less interest in socialization were requisite personal qualities. Work type was either highly controlled or autonomous. The authors conclude there were few occupations that are suited to telecommuting. Management should be aware of problems that employees experience with social isolation and the potential for discrimination in the selection of employees for telecommuting

Autonomy, supervision, motivation, self- discipline, trusting relationship with manager

Key Areas of Focus

Year Author Title Type of Study Results/findings Linked Theories

in the Research/Key Themes

Individual Characteristics

1998 Staples, Hulland, and Higgins (1998)

A self-efficacy theory explanation for the management of remote workers in virtual organizations.

Quantitative Study This study investigates how virtual organizations can manage remote employees effectively. The research used self-efficacy theory to build a model that predicts relationships between antecedents to employees' remote work self-efficacy assessments and their behavioral and attitudinal consequences. The model was tested using responses from 376 remotely-managed employees in 18 diverse organizations. Overall, the results indicated that remote employees' self-efficacy assessments play a critical role in influencing their remote work effectiveness, perceived productivity, job satisfaction and ability to cope. Furthermore, strong relationships were observed between employees' remote work self-efficacy judgments and several antecedents, including remote work experience and training, best practices modeling by management, computer anxiety, and ICT capabilities. Because many of these antecedents can be controlled managerially, these findings suggest important ways in which a remote employee's work performance can be enhanced, through the intermediary effect of improved remote work self-efficacy. The current study also provides a basis for future research in the remote work area through its development and testing of a remote management framework.

Self-Efficacy Theory, Remote Workforce Management, Training in Remote Workers and Experience

Key Areas of Focus

Year Author Title Type of Study Results/findings Linked Theories

in the Research/Key Themes

Adopting and Designing Telecommuting Jobs

1993 Tomaskovic- Devey and Risman (1993)

Telecommuting innovation and organization: A contingency theory of labor process change,” Social Science Quarterly

Academic Journal This article focuses on a "contingency theory" of technological work reorganization that addresses organizational, managerial, and job characteristic contingencies in the reorganization of the work process. The focus is on the rationales of top decision-makers in a sample of firms for adopting and designing telecommuting jobs. Telecommuting, employees working from home using computer technology, is made possible by technological innovations that reduce the cost and increase the efficiency and power of microcomputers and information transmission systems. Effects of technology on work organization will be "contingent" upon organizational processes. Unlike, classic contingency theory, technology has not been stressed as decisive. Instead, technology is seen as embedded in social choices made by managers and workers in an organizational context. Managers do not simply have goals which define subordinates' work activity. Instead managerial goals and methods react to the power of employees as well as to organizational constraints.

Contingency Theory, Technology Impact, Job Characteristics

Telecommunicati ons Impact to Decentralization of Work

1975 Nilles (1975) Telecommunications and Organizational Decentralization

Literature Review This paper describes research at the University of Southern California that estimates the magnitude, direction, and rate of innovation of telecommunications-augmented decentralization of “information industry” organizations.

Diverse theories reviewed

Research Literature Review & Socio-Technical Systems

Socio-Technical Systems

Remote working is a complex and dynamic phenomenon that is continuously

influencing in many different levels modern organizations, the structure of the labor

markets, as well as firm’s competitiveness and productivity advantages of this new work

practice. Recent research shows that in addition to be a response to organizational needs

to increase internal efficiencies and create competitive advantage, remote work is a

phenomenon that is highly linked to the advancement of ICT mobile and virtual

technologies (Hill, Erickson, Holmes, & Ferris, 2010; Pearce, 2009), the impact of the

global economy that has resulted in the globalization of work, and the need for

employees to often perform work during non-traditional working hours (Kumar, van

Fenema, & Von Glinow, 2009). Implementing remote work is a strategic decision that

can impact the firm’s competitiveness, and consequently, this decision can impact the

organization in different dimensions.

Since remote workforce programs involve complex inter-relationships between

work environments, work practices, individual motivations, management, and technology

(Bélanger et al., 2013), evaluating the different implications in isolation may hinder its

strategic impact. As other authors have argued before, telecommuting is a technological

change whose effects cannot be understood without considering the social system within

which is embedded (Passmore & Sherwood, 1978). Approaching our research with a

comprehensive understanding of the socio-technical implications of remote work will

enable a more effective outcome. Therefore, I anchor our theoretical framework in socio-

technical systems theory.

Socio-technical systems theory (STS) has its roots in the socio-technical systems

view of organizations (Katz & Kahn, 1966; Trist & Bamforth, 1951). The theory has

evolved over time as it has been used and tested by researchers from various fields (e.g.

(Hendrick & Kleiner, 2001; Holden & Karsh, 2009; Markham, 1988). From a STS view,

organizations are open work systems that transform inputs to desired outputs (Hendrick

& Kleiner, 2002; Morrison, Cordery, Girardi, & Payne, 2005; Pasmore, 1988; Trist &

Bamforth, 1951). A work system consists of two or more persons interacting using some

form of job design, hardware, and/or software machine(s) or tool(s), and

information/knowledge within a structure(s) or process(es) in both internal and external

environments. Work systems and organizations are considered open in that their

boundaries are permeable, allowing interactions with their environment across levels of

analysis (Katz & Kahn, 1966). Thus, socio-technical systems can be as simple as a person

performing a task with a simple tool or as complex as a large number of individuals in a

multinational enterprise working together using advanced ICT. Examples of applications

of STS in the IS literature include investigations of ICT investment decision processes

and user acceptance of ERP systems (Lim, Pan, & Tan, 2005). Socio-technical systems

theory incorporates factors from four elements critical to transforming work system

inputs to outputs: technology-related factors included in the technical subsystem, social

and people-related factors included in the personnel subsystem, organizational structures,

and work processes included in the organizational structure or work/job design

subsystem, and the environment external to the work system. These subsystems

characterize the internal and external contexts in which people perform their work.

These subsystems continually and jointly interact with each other and both

internal and external organizational environments to produce work system outcomes and

organizational survival (DeGreene, 1973; Hendrick & Kleiner, 2002; Pasmore, 1988;

Trist & Bamforth, 1951). While all relevant, for the purposes of developing our

theoretical framework, and given the fact that I are using the individual knowledge

worker as our unit of analysis, I focus on the internal subsystem environments (factored

at the individual level): personnel, technical and organizational structure/work design

flexibility) and avoid any discussions of environmental conditions (internal and external).

Next, I describe each one of the subsystem and a brief description anchoring in

the theories of our key constructs.

Technical Subsystem

The technical subsystem includes factors representing technologies, policies and

practices that describe the modes of production (e.g., the type and level of ICT support

for the work), the actions individuals take on an object when performing work (e.g., the

tasks themselves), the strategy for reducing uncertainty in the process (e.g., policies or

practices whether supported by ICT or not), the degree of process/workflow integration

(e.g., the degree of automation or workflow rigidity), etc. (e.g., Brown, 2002). Related to

telecommuting, the technical subsystem describes such factors as the types of ICT used

when telecommuting, the facilities available to telecommute from, the reward and

compensation plans of the organization, task/work design when telecommuting, etc.

Next, I provide the literature review on ICT utilization

ICT utilization

The increasing attention to the concept of mobility is not a new phenomenon. The

period we are in is a precondition for the emerging discourses on mobile technology and

the newly incoming digital solutions entering the workplace environment. It is widely

recognized that our time can be characterized as the “post-industrial society” (Bell,

1976), the “post-capitalist society” (Drucker, 1993), or the “information age” (Toffler,

1990).

Research on the role of ICT in telework may be especially significant because the

most notable negative effect of telework results from the deterioration of internal

processes such as organizational communication and control. At the organizational level,

concern about the degradation of internal processes is, in fact, the primary reason for the

scarcity of employer-initiated telework programs (Olson, 1987b). As research and

technology have evolved, some authors argue the contrary and claim that state-of-the-art

ICT offers an effective mechanism for addressing this concern in ways that include

information management, monitoring capability, and communication and collaboration

support (Shin et al., 2000). In particular, the revolution in data communication

technology enables any worker to belong to the virtual network of a company regardless

of his/her geographical location. At the team level, Hertel, Geister, and Konradt (2005)

found that computer-mediated teams (virtual teams) performed at a higher level during

group work than did traditional face to face teams. Further, Hambley, O’Neill, and Kline

(2007) found that team interactions and cohesiveness are influenced by the perceived

accessibility and ease of collaboration and sharing of information via the selected

communication medium is the use of project websites or web portals to foster a sense of

community

At the individual level for remote workers, the enhanced quality of internal

processes is expected to reduce frequently discussed side effects of telework such as

isolation, role conflict and ambiguity, and at the team/management level, to address

difficulties in coordination with peers and supervision of teleworkers (Shin et al., 2000).

A variety of available technologies includes e-mail, voice mail, audio and video

conferencing, fax, and the World Wide Web. These tools are vastly different in their

information carrying ability, provision of accessibility to information and data,

portability, transportability of work (e.g., workflow management), and collaboration

support. Mokhtarian and Sato (1994) suggested that commonly available ICT can have a

marked effect on organizational processes. It appears that general-purpose ICT

applications (e.g., e-mail and the Web) have a larger impact than specialized ICT (e.g.,

video conferencing) in reducing task uncertainties and facilitating better coordination

between an organization and its teleworkers. It was also shown that effective adoption of

a general-purpose communication medium (e.g., e-mail) gave teleworkers an

information-rich tool that enhanced their work productivity (Shin et al., 2000). Overall,

more empirical investigations in this field should improve our understanding of the effect

of ICT on telework effectiveness and teleworkers’ performance (Shin et al., 2000).

Most recently, many technology companies, like Accenture, CSC Corporation,

HPE Enterprise, are developing integrated solutions to improve the digital workplace,

and as technology evolves, both the integration of the tools and the workforce are

evolving as well (Gartner Report, 2015). Recent research shows that employees are

upbeat about the anticipated advancements from digital technologies, with 71%

identifying the team benefits of innovation, agility (69%) and productivity (68%)

(Kleynhans & Fiering, 2015). Unsurprisingly, the young, better educated and those with

higher level occupations are more positively disposed to digital technologies in the

workplace. Almost two-thirds (64%) said they are proactively learning new digital tools

and technical skills to prepare them to adapt to digital advances.

Personnel Subsystem

The personnel subsystem includes at least three types of factors: demographic

characteristics of the workforce, psychosocial aspects of the workforce (e.g., dimensions

of personality, attitudes towards the work environment or the work itself, individual

motivations, etc.) and the degree of professionalism required to perform the work (e.g.,

values, norms or expected behavior patterns of the job, team and/or organization).

Outcomes of the personnel subsystem primarily describe the way tasks are performed.

Related to telecommuting, factors that are considered part of the personnel subsystem can

include workers’ motivations to telecommute, attitudes towards the work while

telecommuting, beliefs or expectations for reward, compensation, and/or communication

when telecommuting, personality preferences for working alone or in collaboration with

others, telecommuter work/life balance issues, and telecommuter demographics.

Personality and Traits

Personality has been considered an important factor in the personality related

studies specifically for predicting job performance. It is a behavior, which differentiates

one person from another (Beer & Brooks, 2011) and provides acumen whether a person

will do some specific job, in comparison to others (Sackett, Gruys, & Ellingson, 1998).

Moreover, the traits, relevant to personality, are considered to be stable and steady

throughout the work life in a personality behavior model (Denissen, van Aken, &

Roberts, 2011; Gerber et al., 2011; Myers, 1997). Hogan and Shelton (1998) pointed out

that the various personality theories examine the variances and similarities in a person.

The similarities can be used to predict one’s performance and behavior, as they provide

the collective attributes of human nature. Whereas, the variances provide the measures of

individual’s performance and are used to describe human performances and behaviors.

Experts in the field of personality are of the view that the individuals, in fact, have

stable and long-term traits that affect behaviors at work (Denissen et al., 2011; Gerber et

al., 2011). With reference to research on personality, some scholars captured that

personality is the most effective tool to predict job performance (Ozer & Benet-Martinez,

2006; Schulman, 2011). Techniques to identify personality traits are mostly adopted at

the time of personnel selection procedure (Barrick & Mount, 1991). Studies on

personality and organizational outcomes have received enormous attention by researchers

in the organizational behavior research. The latest studies illustrate that personality

affects the environments in which individuals are living (Barrick, Mount, & Judge, 2001;

Chen, 2004; Judge & Cable, 1997; Schneider, Smith, Taylor, & Fleenor, 1998) and plays

a significant role in individuals’ selection of the situation in which they decide to remain

in. According to Barrick and Mount (1991), the preference for organizational

environments, the cycle of individuals that a person chooses to interact with, and the kind

of activities that a person enjoys strongly relies on personality.

Intrinsic Motivation

Intrinsic motivation is a characteristic that comes from within an individual, out

of will and interest for the activity at hand. No external rewards are required to incite the

intrinsically motivated person into action. The reward is the behavior itself. Logically,

this seems like an ideal, for people to act as “origins” of their behavior rather than

“pawns” (De Charms, 1968). However, it is certainly not the case that every real world

behavior stems from an intrinsic energy. In management, there is particular interest when

it comes to intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation, particularly because of the different

outcomes that researchers have shown to result from intrinsic motivation: more interest,

excitement, confidence, enhanced performance, persistence, creativity, self-esteem and

general well-being (Deci & Ryan, 1991; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Ryan, Deci, & Grolnick,

1995; Sheldon, Ryan, Rawsthorne, & Ilardi, 1997). Over the years, several theorists have

offered insights into the phenomenon through their conceptions of intrinsic motivation.

Intrinsic motivation comes from inside a person: it is a sense of achievement,

responsibility, job satisfaction, purpose, involvement, empowerment, and ownership—all

the things that make employees feel that what they are doing make a big difference in

their lives and in the organization itself. If employees feel that what they are doing is

insignificant, they will feel insignificant; if, in turn, they feel their work is valued, they

feel valued.

Ryan and Deci (2000) acknowledged that, even when work environment supports

autonomy and competence, if a person is simply not interested in a particular activity, he

or she would not be intrinsically motivated to engage. Rather, he or she will be motivated

by external factors like compensation or bonuses. However, the authors stipulated that

external motivations could be internalized. Despite a lack of interest, a person can still be

self-determined if the activity can be integrated into a sense of self. For example, a

worker may find working remotely uninteresting and therefore not be intrinsically

motivated to work as a remote worker. However, if this person can come to understand

how such activity can be valuable and important as a means of work-life balance,

personal growth and skill enhancement, the person will internalize the extrinsic

motivation. Through this process, the worker can now approach the activity with a sense

of will rather than pressure.

Intrinsic motivation is a very important factor to consider in our search since the

reactions to working remotely may trigger certain changes in human behavior. And while

some research exists, very little empirical research exists today addressing the uniqueness

of working remotely.

From the management and peers’ perspective, some researchers have reported

that due to the natural lack of observability of the day to day work, it is difficult for

supervisors to understand and measure the productivity or remote workers versus the

employee on-site. In a survey conducted in 2007 by CCH Incorporated

(https://www.cchgroup.com), 37% of the managers felt that remote workers spend too

much time carrying out personal activities. In contrast, 41% of the employees surveyed

felt that remote workers were more productive. In addition, most research has focused on

the leader’s role in motivating teleworkers, rather than on the unique needs of the remote

workers (Connaughton & Daly, 2004).

From the employee perspective, some authors have reported motivational issues

associated with teleworking (feelings of isolation, lack of opportunity for employees to

interact and be creative as an example). Nilles (1994), found that teleworkers often

complain about feeling a loss of visibility and belonging. Many remote workers have

reported as well that being out of the visible site of their supervisor is a detriment to the

assignment, and even in some case marking them as top candidates for staff reduction

(Piskurich, 1996a), which all can trigger very different behaviors in the workforce, and as

result create either high or low levels of intrinsic motivation.

Self-Efficacy

Over the past 20 years, self-efficacy has become one of the most widely studied

variables in the educational, psychological, and organizational sciences. Self-efficacy is

an individual’s belief in his or her capacity to muster the cognitive, motivational, and

behavioral resources required to perform in a given situation (Bandura, 1997). That is,

self-efficacy is a situation-specific competence belief. Its popularity rests on the research

that has found that self-efficacy is related to a number of educationally and

organizationally relevant variables (e.g., academic and job performance; Robbins et al.,

2004; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). Despite its popularity, the history of self-efficacy has

been marked by numerous controversies and debates (e.g., Bandura, 1984; Bandura &

Locke, 2003; Eastman & Marzillier, 1984; Kirsch,1985; Vancouver, 2005). In recent

years, a derivative of self-efficacy called general self-efficacy (GSE) has been developed.

The extension of task-specific self-efficacy to GSE has become an issue of contention

among researchers (e.g., Bandura, 1997; Cervone, 1997; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998).

GSE is “individuals’ perception of their ability to perform across a variety of different

situations” (Judge, Erez, & Bono, 1998: 170). That is, GSE is a situation-independent

competence belief. Although there are several criticisms of GSE (e.g., Bandura, 1997),

one of the most critical issues is related to its measurement. This issue is critical because

the measurement of self-efficacy can impact conclusions about its relationships with

other variables (Lee & Bobko, 1994). Admittedly, the measurement criticisms are

somewhat reasonable. In particular, the evidence of the reliability of the responses to the

items on GSE measures is not overly impressive (Chen, Gully, & Eden, 2001). Given that

to establish the construct validity of the scores on a measure rests to a great degree on the

reliability, item parameters, and the factor structure (Guilford, 1954), efforts to address

the criticisms about the construct validity of GSE are hindered by the weak evidence

concerning the other measurement properties of GSE. Researchers have begun to tackle

this criticism via new scale development and rigorous psychometric studies (e.g.,

Bosscher & Smit, 1998; Chen et al., 2001; Scholz, Gutiérrez Doña, Sud, & Schwarzer,

2002). This research has clearly put GSE on more solid psychometric footing.

For this research, I choose to use the GSE construct. The construct of perceived

self-efficacy reflects an optimistic self-belief (Olson, 1989; Schwarzer, 1992). This is the

belief that one can perform a novel or difficult tasks, or cope with adversity in various

domains of human functioning. Perceived self-efficacy facilitates goal-setting, effort

investment, persistence in the face of barriers, and recovery from setbacks. It can be

regarded as a positive resistance resource factor. Ten items are designed to tap this

construct. Each item refers to successful coping and implies an internal–stable attribution

of success (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995). The theory appears to be particularly well

suited to studying virtual organizations. The remote employees in such organizations

typically work with minimal supervision and rely heavily on their own abilities and

initiative to perform their job tasks. Information technology is the typical medium used to

communicate with management since face-to-face interaction is rare or infrequent. Often

the employee works in a location with few or no co-workers, so the potential for isolation

can be high and the availability of co-worker advice is often low. Since remote

employees enjoy considerable work autonomy, the potential impact that their own

motivation and beliefs in their abilities (i.e., self-efficacy judgments) can have on their

outcomes may be considerably more than for employees whose behaviors are under

tighter supervision. Therefore, virtual organizations that learn how to maximize

employees' self-efficacy with respect to working remotely may reap greater benefits from

a virtual working environment.

Theories of Employee engagement

Various authors have recognized the inconsistencies and differing interpretations

of the construct “employee engagement.” For example, Simpson (2009) stated that

although employee engagement has emerged as an important work-related concept, the

definitions and measurement of engagement at work are poorly understood.

Practitioner literature focuses on employee engagement as a positive work-related

outcome that an organization needs to employ in order for them to reap the benefits of

decreased turnover, increased commitment, and retention and increased productivity

(Ketter, 2008; Seijts & Crim, 2006). As an example, The Gallup Organization uses the

term “employee engagement.” Gallup researchers, Harter, Schmidt, and Hayes (2002)

define employee engagement as “the individual’s involvement and satisfaction with as

well as enthusiasm for work” (p. 269). This model of employee engagement identifies

four antecedents that are necessary for employee engagement to occur: clarity of

expectations and basic materials and equipment that is provided; feelings of contribution

to the organization; feeling a sense of belonging to something other than oneself; and

feeling as though there are opportunities to discuss progress and growth (Simpson, 2009:

9). These antecedents are reflected in the Gallup Organization’s measure of employee

engagement, namely the Gallup Workplace Audit (GWA). In recent research provided by

Watson’s (2012) Global Workforces Study, he found that the top five drivers of

employee engagement are: effective leadership, stress/balance of the workload, having

clarity of goals and objectives, the involvement of supervisors, and lastly the image of the

organization.

Researchers from the Institute of Employment Studies (Robinson, Perryman, &

Hayday, 2004) define employee engagement as “a positive attitude held by the employee

towards the organization and its values” (p. ix). An engaged employee is aware of

business context and works to improve performance for the benefit of the organization.

The organization must work to develop and nurture engagement, which requires a two-

way relationship between employer and employee (Robinson et al., 2004). This definition

emphasizes a positive attitude towards the organization and the important aspect of

engagement as a two-way process.

Hewitt Associates’ definition of employee engagement, “the state of emotional

and intellectual commitment to the organization or group producing behavior that will

help fulfill an organization’s promise to customers—and in so doing, improve business

results” (Vance, 2006: 3) also refers to the connection to the organization rather than

one’s work. This definition also uses a related concept, commitment, which could further

confuse engagement with other well-validated constructs. Other authors also use the term

“commitment” when referring to employee engagement. For example, Fleming,

Coffman, and Harter (2005) used the term “committed employees” as a synonym for

“engaged employees.”

Macey and Schneider (2008) noted commonalities to various definitions of

employee engagement. These include it being a desirable condition; it has an

organizational purpose; and it includes involvement, commitment, passion, enthusiasm,

focused effort and energy. Macey and Schneider (2008) highlight that employee

engagement encompassed both attitudinal and behavioral components. They also

advocated that the antecedents of such behavior lay in the conditions of one's work and

the consequences of such behaviors are thought to be of value to organizational

effectiveness. Macey and Schneider (2008) noted that this lack of precision with regards

to employee engagement does not mean that the construct lacks practical or conceptual

utility, but suggested that it would benefit from being framed as a model that

simultaneously embraces both the psychological state and the behavior it implies.

Kahn (1990) introduced the term “personal engagement and disengagement.” He

provided a theoretical conceptualization of engagement in a study which focused on

psychological presence during particular moments of role performances. Kahn (1990)

defines personal engagement as the “simultaneous employment and expression of a

person’s preferred self in task behaviors that promote connections to work and to others,

personal presence and active, full role performances” (p. 700). Whilst in engagement,

employees will express themselves cognitively, physically and emotionally (Kahn, 1990).

When people are engaged, they are understood to be physically involved, cognitively

vigilant and emotionally connected (Simpson, 2009).

Personal disengagement is the withdrawal and defense of the employee’s

preferred self, which results in a lack of connections, personal absence and incomplete

role performances (Kahn, 1990). Whilst in disengagement, employees will withdraw and

defend themselves physically, cognitively and emotionally during role performances

(Kahn, 1990). Kahn’s (1990) premise was that employees will express their preferred

selves on the basis of their past psychological experiences of self-in-role. Kahn (1990)

proposed that three psychological conditions would determine the extent to which

individuals will express their preferred self in a performance role. These three

psychological conditions are psychological meaningfulness, psychological safety, and

psychological availability. Psychological meaningfulness is a feeling that one is receiving

a return on investments of self-given in their work role performances (Kahn, 1992).

Psychological safety refers to a feeling that one is able to show one’s self without fear of

negative consequences to their self-image, status or career (Kahn, 1992). Psychological

availability refers to a sense of having the physical, emotional or psychological resources

to engage personally at a particular moment in time. Kahn’s definition, therefore, focuses

on one’s physical, emotional and cognitive involvement and connection to their work

role, which is determined by the three psychological conditions.

Bakker, Schaufeli, Leiter, and Taris (2008) also provided an attempt to

consolidate the meaning of employee engagement. They discussed three approaches.

First, it is conceived as a set of motivating resources such as recognition, support,

feedback, and opportunities for skill development and learning, which is consistent with

Macey and Schneider’s (2008) antecedents of engagement; second, it is conceived in

terms of commitment and extra-role behavior; and third, engagement is defined

independently from job resources and positive organizational outcomes as a “positive,

fulfilling, affective-motivational state of work-related well-being that is the antipode of

job burnout” (Bakker et al., 2008: 187–188).

Work System/Organizational Structure Subsystem

The organizational structure subsystem is typically characterized in terms of

centralization, formalization, and complexity. Centralization refers to the level and

degree of formal decision-making in a work system (e.g., strategic, tactical or

operational). Formalization refers to the degree to which jobs or tasks within a work

system are standardized. There are two types of complexity assessed in relation to the

STS work system: differentiation and integration. Differentiation complexity takes three

forms—vertical, horizontal, or spatial—and refers to the degree to which a work system

or organization is segmented into parts. Integration complexity refers to the type and

number of mechanisms that are required in the work system to ensure communication,

collaboration, and control of the differentiated elements in a work system. In general, the

need for integrating mechanisms goes up as the degree of differentiation increases.

Related to telecommuting, the organizational structure subsystem characterizes such

aspects of the work system describing the number and degree of differentiation

complexity existing in the organization when telecommuting, the degree to which work

tasks are standardized or ad-hoc (formalization) when telecommuting and the location

and degree of formal decision-making in the work system, (centralization) when

telecommuting.

Leadership Exchange (Leader-Member Exchange LMX)

Telecommuting and the inevitable absence of an office bring about unique

challenges regarding leadership and monitoring employee effectiveness. Leaders may not

have the same opportunity to get to know the employee as remote access via telephone or

e-mail does not always result in building high-quality interpersonal relationships as direct

contact does. For this reason, leadership exchange has been included as it focuses on

relationship building between leaders and employees.

Unlike many other prominent leadership theories, leader–member exchange

(LMX)—formally known as Leader Member Exchange Theory (Graen & Uhl-Bien,

1995)—does not focus on the specific characteristics of an effective organizational

leader. Rather, LMX focuses on the nature and quality of the relationships between a

leader and the individual subordinates. The ideal is for a leader to develop as many high-

quality relationships as possible. This will lead to increases in subordinates’ sense of job

satisfaction and organizational citizenship, as well as to increased productivity and

attainment of organizational goals. LMX has been criticized for its potential to alienate

some subordinates, failing to account for the effects of group dynamics and social

identity, and failing to provide specific advice on how leaders can develop high-quality

relationships. However, LMX has been heralded as an important leadership theory in

higher and distance educational contexts, because of its emphasis on promoting

autonomy and citizenship, as well as its ability to complement and mediate

transformational leadership styles.

Literature shows that leadership has a positive effect on employee engagement.

Most recent research shows that having a good relationship with immediate supervisors

and believing in senior leadership (Carnegie, 2012) is a top driver of engagement. In this

study, based on previous research and the findings shown in our recent qualitative study,

I theorize that leadership has a higher impact for high-intensity workers than it does for

low-intensity remote workers, that is to say that the less that the employee works

remotely, the less the importance of leadership, but the more that the employee works

remotely, the higher the importance of leadership.

Virtual Work Intensity

By treating telecommuting as a single, undifferentiated program, researchers tend

to overlook potentially important structural distinctions among work arrangements. The

main structural distinction made by previous investigators deals with what they refer to as

virtual work intensity: the extent or amount of scheduled time that remote workers spend

doing tasks away from a central work location. This idea has been referred to as “virtual

status” by Wiesenfeld et al. (1999: 782), “virtuality” by Scott and Timmerman (1999:

242), and as “home-centered versus office-centered” telework by Konradt, Hertel, and

Schmook (2003: 62), among other terms (Hill et al., 2003). An emerging perspective on

telecommuting intensity in the literature is that when telecommuters spend the majority,

versus a minority, of their scheduled time away from a central location, it crosses a

psychological threshold - in a sense, creating two classes, of employees in telecommuting

arrangements (Meehl, 1992). High-intensity telecommuters spend the majority or all of

their workdays away from a central location. Low-intensity telecommuters spend the

majority of their workdays at a central (conventional) location, working remotely for only

one or two days a week. Konradt et al. (2003) found that telecommuters who spent more

than 50% of their time away from the office (home-centered) had different motivations

for telecommuting than those who spent less than 50% of their time away (office-

centered). Home-centered or high-intensity telecommuters sought to balance their work

and family demands while office-centered or low-intensity telecommuters sought

freedom from interruptions. Similarly, Wiesenfeld et al. (1999) found that high virtual

status employees (those who work three or more days per week away from a central work

location, usually home) had different communication patterns as opposed to low virtual

status employees (those who work three or more days a week at a central location).

Coveyduck (1997), De Lay (1995), Mackie-Lewis (1998), Schneider-Borowicz (2003),

and Taveras (1998) also used similar splits of scheduled work time at work and at home

as an indicator of behavioral immersion in telecommuting.

Environmental Systems

The work environment describes the relevant characteristics of the context within

which the work system operates (both internal and external at whatever level of analysis).

It is critical that work systems and organizations are able to adapt to relevant factors in

their environment. Environmental factors that positively or negatively affect work

systems in organizations can be socioeconomic, educational, political, cultural, or legal.

For each organization and work system, these factors will differ in type, quality, and

importance. For example, the external environment of the telecommuting work system

may describe the political climate in relation to stakeholders external to the

telecommuting work system being analyzed, the regional or national culture in relation to

trust and work, the workgroup, team, or organizational traditions for collaborating face-

to-face vs. virtual, and the legal requirements for transacting business, protecting

proprietary information or providing secure ICT infrastructure when telecommuting.

Others can be internally focused as financial metrics and productivity outcomes.

Remote Workforce productivity

Productivity is the amount of output produced in a specific amount of time

(Miller, 2008). productivity measurement is a quantifiable measure calculated as the ratio

of what is produced to what is required to produce it (Miller, 2008). Previous research

from Butler, Aasheim, and Williams (2007) included a case study on an organization to

see if telecommuting really does improve a company’s productivity. The authors stated

that many studies on this topic had been short term and based on self-reported data

instead of actual measurements. Because of this, the authors believe that previous

findings could be called into question. To make their work more credible, they performed

a longitudinal test over nearly five years on the Kentucky American Water Company

(KAWC).

During this time, the researchers studied the cost over time and the productivity of

both telecommuter employees and regular office employees. The findings of their

research were paramount to the field. As the first finding, they claimed that

telecommuting did increase employee’s productivity. Thirteen months after the

implementation of the system, the average telecommuter productivity increased by 154%.

In the following year, productivity increased from 9.4 calls per hour to 10.5 calls per hour

but dropped to 10.2 calls per hour in the third year. It then increased to 11.1 calls per

hours in the final three months of operation. They also found that telecommuters worked

3.98 hours more per month than non-telecommuters. In their conclusion, they believed

that telecommuting did increase overall productivity for the company, but did not want to

make a generalization, as there had not been similar test cases to date, and that this might

only be applicable to the KAWC. As in this case, research about remote workforce

productivity is controversial, so it is important to understand the different lenses that

authors have as it refers to productivity at the individual and organizational level.

Productivity, at the individual level, has been reported as a perceived benefit of

telework for organizations (Callentine, 1995; Hill et al., 2003; Pitt-Catsouphes &

Marchetta, 1991). Reasons cited include working at peak efficiency hours, reducing

distractions and interruptions, being in an environment conducive to increased

concentration, and reducing incidental absence (Baruch, 2000; Bélanger, 1999). Huws

(1992) found indications for improved productivity, reliability and work quality among

teleworkers (see also Salomon & Shamir, 1985). They were perceived more loyal, less

likely to avoid work (i.e., be “absent” from home during work time) and had lower

tendency to change employer.

At the organizational level, though, productivity has frequently been

contradictory. Higa, Sheng, Shin, and Figueredo (2000) reported that changes in

teleworker productivity were consistently of interest to a number of studies (Di Martino

& Wirth, 1990; DuBrin, 1991; Olson, 1989). These studies were remarkably alike in

pointing out the positive effect of telework in enhancing individual productivity.

However, except for a few state-commissioned studies such as the Evaluation Audit and

Review (EAR) Group Report, research that systematically investigated productivity

changes resulting from telework has been rare. Most studies merely quoted anecdotal

program reports or referenced nominal discussions based on hearsay without mentioning

methodological details. The authors also noted that there were methodological and

conceptual weaknesses in the existing literature.

First, the measurement of productivity change depended primarily on bias-prone

self-reports. Telecommuters’ and managers’ different evaluations of productivity gains

appear to exemplify perception bias (Westfall, 2004). Second, sample populations

selected under particular personality and task criteria, in general, could be expected to

have higher work motivation and, therefore, contribute to increased productivity. Third,

the relegation of other tasks to on-site workers may have contributed to increased

telework productivity. Finally, higher productivity might have been the consequence of

increased working hours. Motivated workers may have invested the commuting time

saved in extra work. In such a case, if the productivity is measured as the ratio between

inputs and outputs, an increased amount of work done during extended working hours

does not necessarily mean increased productivity (Shin et al., 2000).

Some authors support that future research on productivity may be facilitated if

subcomponents (or alternative measures) of productivity were identified. The effect of

telework on each subcomponent (or alternative measure) and on the dynamics among

subcomponents could then be examined. For instance, Gordon (1997) proposed an

effectiveness concept that covers multidimensional aspects of work characteristics in

terms of quantity, quality, timeliness, and multiple priorities. Multiple priorities represent

“how many things can be done simultaneously” (Gordon, 1997) by a teleworker.

Similarly, the EAR Group investigated teleworker performance from perspectives of

overall work productivity, quantity of work, quality of work, the ability to meet

deadlines, absenteeism, punctuality, and overtime work. On the positive side, Di Martino

and Wirth (1990) and Caudron (1992) indicated benefits gained by home working for

employers in productivity terms (see also Metzger & Von Glinow, 1988). Along the same

line, Stavrinidis (1991) provides financial analysis, claiming significant savings for

companies in terms of office space, cars, and use of time.

Research Questions

As previously introduced, this research focuses on developing new knowledge in

three areas associated with the challenge on how to achieve productivity and engagement

in the remote and on-site workforce. First, I seek to understand how knowledge workers

become engaged and how the mode and drivers of engagement differ between remote and

on-site workers. Second, anchored in socio-technical systems theory, I study the factors

that influence productivity and engagement in knowledge workers (i.e., work location

preference, leadership, ICT utilization) and the moderation and interaction effects of

virtual intensity, as well as how those factors compare between remote and on-site

knowledge workers. Third, I expand our study to understand the impact of worker self-

efficacy in both categories. Last, I integrate the research findings and elaborate on the

contributions, evaluating the academic and practical implications, as well as highlighting

the limitations of our study.

To advance the understanding of these phenomena, the research questions that I

address in this thesis are:

1)! How do remote workers become engaged/productive and are the mode and

drivers different from on-site workers?

2)! What factors influence productivity and engagement for on-site and remote

workers?

a.! What happens when the employee experiences enjoyment or stress/tension

in the work location? Does it matter?

b.! What is the impact of ICT remote work tools/ utilization and leadership?

c.! What is the impact of virtual intensity?

3)! Given the different categories, the full-time remote, full-time on-site, and

blended workers entering the workplace?

a.! What are the differences of the degree of impact of the factors that impact

productivity and engagement, amongst the three different categories?

b.! Given the changes that workers are experiencing and coping with,

working either remotely, on-site or in a blended category, what is the

impact of the worker self-efficacy on productivity and engagement?

We employ a three-phases, sequential, mixed methods study to define the factors

that influence productivity and engagement.

Research Design

In this research, an exploratory sequential mixed methods approach is employed.

A QUAL → QUAN → QUAN mixed-methods approach with an exploratory sequential

design (Plano Clark & Creswell, 2011) was employed. The main purpose of this method

is to generalize qualitative findings based on a few individuals from the first phase to a

larger sample gathered during the second phase (Plano Clark & Creswell, 2011). This

design is based on the premise that an exploratory step is needed, either because 1)

measures or variables are not available; 2) the variables are unknown; or 3) because there

is no guiding framework or theory. This mixed method research method was perfectly

suited to address the research questions and goals of our study. Taken together, the

research questions were mostly exploratory but also confirmatory in nature. One of the

primary advantages of a mixed methods approach is that it facilitates addressing both

kinds of questions in the same study (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). This method allowed

examination of the research questions in greater breadth and depth than would have been

possible using any single method as it facilitated both discovery and explanation.

The first qualitative phase uses grounded theory to understand the differences

between drivers of productivity and engagement for knowledge workers. The findings

from this first phase informed the development of the second and third quantitative

phases, including a narrowing of the scope of analysis to the factors that work within the

confines of productivity and engagement. The quantitative phases used factor analysis,

structural equation modeling, and simple linear regression techniques to identify

relationships and test the strength and generalizability of the factors identified. Results

were triangulated in the interpretation phase providing stronger support for the study’s

conclusions and development of theory than would have been not possible in a single

methods study. Not only did the qualitative study provide the grist for the development of

the quantitative phases, but it also suggested rich explanations for the relationships

discovered in those studies.

Our thesis is composed of three research phases and a discussion section. The

result of our phase, the qualitative study is partially the foundation of our theoretical

framework for study two and three. Figure 2 provides an integrated view on the

sequential phases/studies, highlighting the type of research methods as well as the main

focus each one of the studies. The ultimate goal of the research is to build an integrated

framework on how to improve the management and implementation of remote work

practices. As previously described, the research was completed in three different

sequential studies, which then were consolidated, analyzed and integrated, ending with

the creation of a framework that illustrates the key aspects that should be considering by

management and human resources when implementing remote work practices.

Figure 2. Sequential Mixed Method Research Approach

Next, we discuss our theoretical model and its foundation.

Research Framework

The structure of the research is anchored in four sub-systems of the socio-

technical systems theory—Trist and Bamforth (1951) and Katz and Kahn’s (1966) socio-

technical systems theory. The four elements or sub-systems that are critical to

transforming work systems into outputs are technology, personnel, organization & work-

organization design, internal and external environment. Socio-technical systems theory

posits that these subsystems continually and jointly interact with each other to produce

work systems outcomes (Trist & Bamforth, 1951). From the technology sub-system

perspective, the utilization of technology was incorporated as a potential key driver of

productivity and engagement; this was also informed by both, the findings of the

qualitative study and current literature in the field related to the impact of technology on

remote work. From the personnel subsystem, intrinsic motivation was adapted to explore

the impact of work location preference, and the impact of enjoyment or stress given the

preference of the employee to a particular type of work alternative. Self-efficacy was also

incorporated to understand, how the workers are coping with the different type of

working conditions given the entrance of different remote work alternatives in the

workplace. This was also informed by both the findings of our qualitative study and

current theory in the field. From organizational/work sub-system, leadership support was

incorporated to understand the degree of influence that leadership has in workers and

how this impact may be vary depending on the type of work alternative. In addition,

virtual intensity was incorporated to understand the implications to productivity and

engagement effects of high and low levels of virtual intensity. Figure 3 shows an

integrated view of the theoretical research framework.

In study one, the aim was to understand how remote knowledge workers become

engaged, and how the mode and drivers of engagement differ from remote versus on-site

workers. To complete this study, a qualitative methods approach was employed. In the

second study, the focus was to measure and confirm the factors that drive productivity

and engagement, as well as to understand the key differences on the impact of this factors

among the remote and on-site workers and the implications of the virtual intensity. In the

third study, the focus was to expand the research to understand, given the different types

of work alternatives: the full-time remote, full-time on-site, and blended workers,

entering the workplace, what are the differences of the degree of impact of the factors

that impact productivity and engagement, amongst the three different categories. And

lastly, given the changes that workers are experiencing and coping with, working either

remotely, on-site or in a blended category, what is the impact of the worker self-efficacy

on productivity and engagement. For the second and third studies, a quantitative methods

approach was employed. Next, we explain the sequential mixed methods approach in

detail, as well as we provide a deeper account of specific theoretical framing, as it relates

to each one the phases of this research.

Figure 3. Theoretical Research Framework

The sequential research design is shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Three Phase Sequential Study Approach

Next, we review the research methodology proposed which is divided into three

separate but connected studies. We briefly list each study and then discuss why the

approach is relevant and how each contributes the overall study as shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5. Proposed Research Design

Phase 1 – Research Question and Methodological Approach

The research question: What is the nature of employee engagement?

•! Are these factors different between remote and on-site workers?

•! What new trends are emerging in HR practices?

In this study, we seek to discern new insights about employee engagement and

how the nature of engagement is changing. We extend our research to understand if there

are any particular differentiators in the nature of engagement for remote versus on-site

workers. Phenomenological, semi-structured interviews, informed by the grounded

theory principles of (Corbin & Strauss, 1990) were conducted with 20 individuals

currently active in the workforce, either working remotely or in a traditional on-site

setting. The semi-structured interviews allowed for structure and uniformity in the

collection of data but preserved flexibility and opportunity for the emergence of novel

contributions from respondents.

As described by Corbin and Strauss (1990), the qualitative method “…allows

researchers to get at the inner experience of participants, to determine how meanings are

formed through and in culture” (p. 12). Our research problem was well suited for such an

approach as it involved individual’s attitudes and behavior. Furthermore, understanding

employees’ experiences that are very personal and evoke strong emotional reactions not

easily extracted or measured by quantitative methods.

Our data was interpreted using analytical methods recommended by Corbin and

Strauss (1990) that included constant comparison and theoretical sampling. Emergent

themes and concepts directed forward sampling, which continued until no more themes,

or concepts could be identified, signaling theoretical saturation.

Sample, data collection, and data analysis will be further explained in the

qualitative study section of our thesis.

Phase 2 – Research Question and Methodological Approach

The second study is a sequential study of our first study. Using the key findings as

a reference, we formulated the following questions:

1.! What factors influence productivity and engagement for on-site and remote workers? How do they compare

a.! What happens when the employee experiences enjoyment or stress/tension in the work location? Does it matter?

b.! What is the impact of ICT Remote Work Tools/ Utilization and leadership?

c.! What is the impact of virtual intensity?

To empirically test the proposed model, we had already surveyed 304 employees

(152 that work remotely and 152 that work in a traditional on-site setting) using a

psychometric survey methodology that maps individual responses to the underlying

constructs within our model. Our model involved seven constructs (four independent

variables, one mediator, one dependent variable, one moderator) and two controls—all of

which were measured with reflective scales (Figure 6).

This model was developed using our findings in the first phase of this study, and

was complemented with relevant theories extensively studied related to engagement and

remote worker productivity. Details on the theory behind the model will be explained.

Figure 6. Proposed Model – Quantitative Study One

Our analysis consisted of eight major steps that we briefly describe as follows.

Several statistical techniques were employed to ensure validity, reliability, and adequacy

of the data and to create appropriate model specification prior to the testing the

hypotheses. After basic data analysis and model specification, we proceeded to prepare to

test our hypothesis. The first step involved validating the reflective measurement model

using an exploratory factor analysis in SPSS and then a confirmatory factor analysis in

AMOS. The second step involved creating composite variables from latent variable

scores in AMOS. This step reduces the fully latent model into just one composite variable

per factor. The new composite variables then account for the factor weights of the latent

variables, just as in the latent model. With only one variable per factor, the testing of the

structural model is greatly simplified. The third step of our analysis included the testing

Controls • Gender • Experience

Technical)Subsystem

Leadership) Exchange

IT)Utilization

Organization)Subsystem

Moderation

Enjoyment)Work) Location

Personnel)Subsystem

Job) Engagement

Personnel)Subsystem

Organizational)Outcomes

Worker Productivity

Stress/Tension) Work)Location

Moderator

Virtual-Intensity-(High/Low)

Mediation,-Moderation-&-Group-Comparison-(Remote-and-Onsite)

Mediation Direct-effects

of the structural model in AMOS. To test for mediation, we employed the Baron (1986)

and Sobel (1982) approaches.

The research analysis is further detailed in this study section.

Phase 3 – Research Question and Methodological Approach

This third study is a sequential study of our first and second studies (Pitt-

Catsouphes & Marchetta, 1991; Scott & Timmerman, 1999). Using the key findings as a

reference, we expand the research to understand, given the different types of work

alternatives: the full-time remote, full-time on-site, and blended workers, entering the

workplace, what are the differences of the degree of impact of the factors that impact

productivity and engagement, amongst the three different categories. And lastly, given

the changes that workers are experiencing and coping with, working either remotely, on-

site or in a blended category, what is the impact of the worker self-efficacy on

productivity and engagement. We formulated the following questions:

1.! Given the different categories, the full-time remote, full-time on-site, and

blended workers entering the workplace?

a.! What are the differences of the degree of impact of the factors that impact

productivity and engagement, amongst the three different categories?

b.! Given the changes that workers are experiencing and coping with,

working either remotely, on-site or in a blended category, what is the

impact of the worker self-efficacy on productivity and engagement?

To empirically test the proposed model, we use the results of our cross-sectional

study, the same data used for the study, but augment the construct of self-efficacy to

measure the impact of self-efficacy on productivity and engagement. We also clarify and

confirm previously tested hypotheses as presented in Study 2. More importantly, as

shown below expanded the model to measure the impact of the factors that drive

productivity and engagement, and compared them against the different types of work

alternatives entering the workplace, but only the most critical factors founded in the

previous quantitative study, impacting productivity and engagement were considered.

The model measuring productivity considers ICT utilization, work location enjoyment

and leadership support, with gender and experience as moderators. The model measuring

the impact to engagement, considers self-efficacy, with gender and experience as

moderators (Figure 7). This model was developed using the findings of both the

qualitative study and the previous quantitative study of this research; therefore, the

measurement characteristics (survey, scales, controls) and conditions of the model are the

same, except the addition of self-efficacy theory. The analytical approach was the same,

with the addition of a comparative method approach that was applied to analyze the key

differences amongst the three groups’ findings in the first phase of this study, and was

complemented with relevant theories extensively studied related to productivity and

engagement of remote worker productivity. Details on the application of the theory

behind the model are further explained in each study.

Figure 7. Conceptual Models Approach - Quantitative Study Two

Our analysis consisted of eight major steps that we briefly described above in

phase 2 of this research. The same methodology was applied to ensure the validity of our

model but including self-efficacy. In addition, we applied diverse statistical techniques to

validate the extended hypothesis. To conduct this comparative analysis, direct effects

analysis was conducted using path analysis in SPSS Amos version 23, as well as multi-

group analysis will be applied. Given the nature of multiple group comparison, this

statistical strategy is best suited to our analysis. For the multi-group analysis, a chi-square

test was conducted to understand the differences at the model level (Byrne, 2004).

Because the χ2 diff test for the null and free model was found to be statistically

significant, a pair-wise parameter comparison was used (Arbuckle & Wothke, 1999) to

determine which pairs of parameters were significantly different at the individual factor

level. For the pair-wise parameter comparison test, critical ratios for differences between

two parameters in question were calculated by dividing the difference between the

parameter estimates by an estimate of the standard error of the difference (Arbuckle &

Wothke, 1999).

The research analysis is further detailed in this study section.

Discussion Section

Remaining Chapters

The remaining chapters focus on the results of the qualitative and quantitative

studies. First, we discuss the qualitative study, and then we review both quantitative

studies. Once all three studies have been reviewed, we integrate the results before

concluding.

CHAPTER III: DRIVERS OF PRODUCTIVITY AND ENGAGEMENT

Introduction

Research accumulated in the last ten years shows that engaged employees are

more productive employees, and companies with high levels of employee engagement

generate better financial results. Companies with high levels of engagement are more

profitable, more customer-focused. In fact, Bersin & Associates (2012) reports that

corporations currently invest $720 million annually in engagement programs. Companies

in which 60% (or more) of the workforce is engaged have average five-year total returns

to shareholders (TSR) of more than 20%. That compares to companies where only 40%

or 60% of the employees are engaged which have an average TSR of about 6%

(Baumruk, 2006).

Despite the incremental efforts and investments to increase levels of employee

engagement, current data shows that the indexes around the world have remained pretty

steady, putting pressure in corporations to re-evaluate and re-think their employee

engagement models (Bersin & Associates, 2012). The Gallup organization has reported

that only 31% of employees are engaged, 2% lower than the 33% reported in 2010

(Gallup, 2011). Previous years support a similar trend, 2009 showing 30% engagement,

and 31% reported in 2008. In 2010, at least 46% of companies participating in the Aon

Hewitt survey reported a decrease in engagement levels of minus 4%, where in past

years, the percentage was much lower, 25%, by 2008 and 31% in 2009 (Aon Hewitt,

2011). Most recent data as of October 2015 reports that the percentage of U.S. workers

that Gallup considers engaged in their jobs averaged 32.1%. In conclusion, employee

engagement levels have been nearly unchanged since March of this year.

This information then poses the question of what factors are changing in the

environment that could be affecting the lack of engagement, and as consequence limiting

productivity in organizations. Some claim that managers and leaders play a critical role.

Gallup has found that managers who focus on their employees’ strengths can practically

eliminate active disengagement and double the average of U.S. workers who are engaged

worldwide. In their most recent Global Human Capital Trends Report 2015, Deloitte

Human Capital reported that culture and engagement were rated the most important issue

for management overall slightly edging out leadership (the No. 1 issue last year). This

challenge highlights the need for business and HR leaders to gain a clear understanding

of their organization’s culture and reexamine every HR and talent program as a way to

better engage and empower people.

While these are internal aspects of organizational effectiveness that for the most

part are within the internal control of the organization, there are other macroeconomic,

technology and workforce demographic factors influencing the state of the workplace.

Many argue that the economy is one big factor especially in the last 5–8 years, where

massive layoffs, pay freezes, cuts in benefits, fewer people to do the work and general

instability, all seem likely to affect employee’s morale (Cascio, 2002; Mishra et al.,

1998), making people less engaged in their work, increasing the challenge for

organizations to drive performance.

On the other hand, the pervasive utilization of technology outside of the

workplace is forcing organizations to implement tools and technology that can attract and

retain professionals, who want to work more efficiently, in a more flexible environment

where work can be performed anytime, and anywhere (Fulk & DeSanctis, 1995). This

change in technology has as a consequence created changes in workplace practices, such

as remote working, distributed teaming environments (Aubert & Kelsey, 2003),

increasing the difficulty for organizations to understand how to maintain employees

engaged in a less restricted environment and at the same time drive the necessary

productivity and performance (Ilgen & Pulakos, 1999).

The importance of ICT is increasing for organizations (Jamali & Hashemi, 2011).

Although this has not been explored as an enabler of employee engagement, recent

research (McGrath & Freed, 2012) shows that companies’ social intranets and enterprise

technology are becoming the online reflection of the company’s culture. At the same

time, work productivity and social tools (video conferencing, telepresence, instant

messaging, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc., are becoming the norm in the working place;

creating virtual places that some would argue, give every employee a face and a voice,

humanizing the company’s online environment and creating the foundation for

engagement (McGrath & Freed, 2012).

From the workforce demographic perspective, Gallup research shows that

different types of workers need different types of engagement strategies. The generations

near the end of their careers tend to be more engaged than those at the beginning of their

careers. Millennials are most likely of all generations to say they will leave their jobs in

the next 12 months if the job market improves. Women have slightly higher overall

engagement than men. Employees with a college degree are not as likely as those with

less education to report having a positive, engaging workplace experience.

Clearly, given the impact of the economy, the accelerated introduction of

technology as well as the new trends of practices in the workplace, it imperative for

organizations to make sense of the effects and level of impact this may have on employee

productivity and engagement of the organization.

Though employee engagement has declined to its lowest point in eight years,

leaders have huge opportunity to prevent further declines. Employees are individuals with

individual talents, individual motivations, and individual challenges. Their perceptions of

their workplaces are driven by many unique factors that come together to create one

culture, and each organization’s culture is unique. This is why it’s vital for corporate

leaders to understand what uniquely drives productivity and engagement. So then the

question is, “Where can leaders take action within their organizations?”

In our research, we argue that the answer lies with first understanding what

factors drive productivity and engagement in the workforce. And that is the main goal of

our research. This research explores the factors explaining the nature of productivity and

engagement of knowledge workers. And also provides insights to key prevailing

differentiators in the nature of productivity and engagement between remote and on-site

knowledge workers

We began this study by reviewing the academic and practitioner literature on

productivity and engagement of knowledge workers, new workplace dynamics as

practices of remote work and the impact of technology in the workplace. We discuss our

methodology and then describe our key findings. Finally, we identify the limitations of

this study and conclude with our thoughts on the implications for practitioners and for

future research.

Literature Review

This section identifies key academic literature, theories, and practitioner articles

that seeded our research and shaped the research question. Given the nature of this

qualitative study, the theories described in this section underpins this research and the

corresponding grounded questionnaire. This literature will include a review of employee

engagement theories as well as research related to productivity; these are the pillars that

shaped our research questions.

Employee engagement

The term “employee engagement”, in its present usage, was coined by the Gallup

Organization, as a result of 25 years of interviewing and surveying employees and

managers. Their intent was to create a measure of workplaces that could be used for

comparisons. Their research has been published in books, practitioner magazines,

academic journals, and on websites. In First, Break all the Rules, the original book

coming out of the Gallup research (Buckingham & Coffman, 1999) report that Gallup

spent years refining a set of employee opinion questions that are related to organizational

outcomes. The statistically derived items, called the Gallup Workplace Audit (GWA),

that measure employee engagement are related to productivity, profitability, employee

retention, and customer service at the business unit level (hospital, hotel, factory, etc.).

They report that employees who score high on the questions are “emotionally engaged”

in the work and the organization. (See Appendix A for the questions.) In Follow This

Path, the second book coming out of the Gallup research, Coffman, Gonzalez-Molina,

and Gopal (2002) say that engagement is not only about how people think but also about

how they feel. They say that the engaged employees collectively are an “economic force

that fuels an organization’s profit growth” (p. 26). They group employees into three

categories, the actively engaged, the non-engaged, and the actively disengaged

employees. Most of the book is devoted to “how-to” chapters for managers.

Practitioner literature focuses on employee engagement as a positive work-related

outcome that an organization needs to employ in order for them to reap the benefits of

decreased turnover, increased commitment, and retention and increased productivity

(Ketter, 2008; Seijts & Crim, 2006). As an example, The Gallup Organization uses the

term “employee engagement.” Gallup researchers, Harter et al. (2002) define employee

engagement as the individual’s involvement and satisfaction with as well as enthusiasm

for work. This definition focuses on the employees’ work and uses other related

constructs to explain the concept. Harter, Schmidt and Hayes’ (2003, as cited in Simpson,

2009) model of employee engagement identifies four antecedents that are necessary for

employee engagement to occur: clarity of expectations and basic materials and equipment

that is provided; feelings of contribution to the organization; feeling a sense of belonging

to something other than oneself; and feeling as though there are opportunities to discuss

progress and growth (Simpson, 2009: 9). These antecedents are reflected in the Gallup

Organization’s measure of employee engagement, namely the Gallup Workplace Audit

(GWA). In recent research provided by Towers Watson (2012), they found that the top

five drivers of employee engagement are: Effective leadership, Stress/Balanced of the

workload, Having clarity of goals and objectives, involvement of supervisors, and lastly,

the image of the organization

On the other hand, academic researchers from the Institute of Employment

Studies, Robinson, Perryman, and Hayday Robinson et al. (2004) define employee

engagement as a positive attitude held by the employee towards the organization and its

values. An engaged employee is aware of business context and works to improve

performance for the benefit of the organization. This definition emphasizes a positive

attitude towards the organization and the important aspect of engagement as a two-way

process. Other authors also use the term commitment when referring to employee

engagement. For example, Fleming et al. (2005, as cited in Little & Little, 2006) used the

term “committed employees” as a synonym for “engaged employees”.

Macey and Schneider (2008) note commonalities to various definitions of

employee engagement. These include it being a desirable condition, having an

organizational purpose, and it includes involvement, commitment, passion, enthusiasm,

focused effort, and energy. Macey and Schneider (2008) highlight that it encompasses

both attitudinal and behavioral components. The authors advocate that the antecedents of

such behavior lie in the conditions of one's work and the consequences of such behaviors

are thought to be of value to organizational effectiveness. Macey and Schneider (2008)

note that this lack of precision with regards to employee engagement does not mean that

the construct lacks practical or conceptual utility but suggest that it would benefit from

being framed as a model that simultaneously embraces both the psychological state and

the behavior it implies (Macey & Schneider, 2008).

Kahn (1990) introduced the term personal engagement and disengagement. He

provided a theoretical conceptualization of engagement in a study—which focused on

psychological presence during particular moments of role performances. Kahn (1990)

defines personal engagement as the “simultaneous employment and expression of a

person’s preferred self in task behaviors that promote connections to work and to others,

personal presence and active, full role performances” (p. 700). Whilst in engagement,

employees will express themselves cognitively, physically and emotionally (Kahn, 1990).

When a person is engaged, they are understood to be physically involved, cognitively

vigilant and emotionally connected (Simpson, 2009).

Schaufeli and Bakker (2008) also provide an attempt to consolidate the meaning

of employee engagement. They discuss three approaches. First, it is conceived as a set of

motivating resources such as recognition, support, feedback, and opportunities for skill

development and learning, which is consistent with Macey and Schneider’s (2008)

antecedents of engagement. Second, it is conceived in terms of commitment and extra-

role behavior. Third, engagement is defined independently from job resources and

positive organizational outcomes as a “positive, fulfilling, affective-motivational state of

work-related well-being that is the antipode of job burnout.”

Employee engagement Related & Different Theories

Because many of the definitions of employee engagement invoke existing

constructs, such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational

citizenship behaviors and job involvement, it is important to understand the theories its

relationship to employee engagement and how they differ from each other

Job satisfaction, a widely researched construct, is defined as a pleasurable or

positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences

(Locke & Henne, 1986). Harter et al. (2002) begin their discussion of engagement by

using the term engagement-satisfaction, but drop the satisfaction from the term early in

their article. Generalized job satisfaction has been shown to be related to other attitudes

and behaviors. Positively, it is related to organizational commitment, job involvement,

organizational citizenship behaviors and mental health. Negatively, it is related to

turnover, perceived stress and pro-union voting (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2004). It has been

found that while the relationship between job satisfaction and performance is weak at the

individual level, but is stronger at the aggregate level (Ostroff, 1992). In the engagement

literature, Harter et al. (2002) invoke Ostroff’s research as a reason for studying

employee engagement at the business unit level.

Job involvement is the degree to which one is cognitively preoccupied with,

engaged in and concerned with one’s present job (Paullay, Alliger, & Stone-Romero,

1994). Pfeffer (1994) argues that individuals’ being immersed in their work is a primary

determinant of organizational effectiveness. Job involvement has been shown to be

related to OCBs and job performance (Diefendorff, Brown, Kamin, & Lord, 2002). In the

employee engagement literature, Wellins and Concelman (2005) use the term job

ownership as a synonym of engagement.

Organizational commitment is the degree to which an individual identifies with an

organization and is committed to its goals. Commitment has been shown to be related to

voluntary employee turnover. It is also seen as crucial to individual performance in

modern organizations that require greater self-management than in the past (Dessler,

1999). In the engagement literature, several of the authors use terms such as commitment

(Fleming et al., 2005), an amalgam of commitment, loyalty, productivity and ownership

(Wellins & Concelman, 2005), and loyalty (DDI).

Organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) are discretionary behaviors that are

beyond formal obligations. They “lubricate the social machinery of the organization,

reducing friction and/or increasing efficiency” (Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1997). These

desirable behaviors have been shown to be related to job satisfaction and organizational

commitment and to be related more to work situation than dispositional factors

(Podsakoff, MacKenzie & Bommer, 1996). OCB, an outcome of the attitudes of job

satisfaction and organizational commitment, is similar to the definitions in the

engagement literature of being respectful of and helpful to colleagues and willingness to

go the extra mile (Robinson et al., 2004), or working longer hours, trying harder,

accomplishing more and speaking positively about the organization (Wellins &

Concelman, 2005).

After reviewing all these related theories, it is almost impossible to ignore the

question as to whether employee engagement is a meaningful concept that management

should continue to explore, or whether it is missing some other aspects that management

should be looking at. We argue that employee engagement is an outcome and that there

are other aspects related to human behavior, socio-technical factors that should be

evaluated in other for management to create a more meaningful understanding of the

aspects affecting the current state of the workplace. Therefore, our ground theory

approach will allow us to apply an open-ended method that will allow us to uncover

factors that may be hidden at this point.

Knowledge Worker Productivity

According to the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and

Development), productivity is commonly defined as a ratio between the output volume

and the volume of inputs. In other words, it measures how efficiently production inputs,

such as labor and capital, are being used in an economy to produce a given level of

output. There are different measures of productivity and the choice between them

depends either on the purpose of the productivity measurement and/or data availability.

At the organizational level, productivity is a performance measure encompassing both

efficiency and effectiveness in an organization. Therefore, it is important to know not

only who the productive workers are, but what drives it. Productivity is a performance

measure encompassing both efficiency and effectiveness. High performing, effective

organizations have a culture that encourages employee involvement. Therefore,

employees are more willing to get involved in decision-making, goal setting or problem-

solving activities, which subsequently result in higher employee performance raise

employee productivity and satisfaction Hellriegel, Slocum, and Woodman (1998),

According to Miller and Monge (1986), job satisfaction increases productivity through

bringing high-quality motivation and through increasing working capabilities at the time

of implementation. There is evidence that participative climate has a more substantial

effect on workers’ satisfaction than participation in specific decisions, and it appears that

participation in goal setting does not have a strong effect on productivity. Participation

has a strong effect on both job satisfaction and productivity, but its effect on satisfaction

is somewhat stronger than on productivity.

At the individual level, and given the current newly workplace practices of remote

work, employee productivity is being heavily scrutinized by academia and management.

Some agree that productivity at the individual level is regularly reported as a perceived

benefit of telework for Organizations (Callentine, 1995; Hill et al., 1998; Pitt-Catsouphes

& Marchetta, 1991). Reasons cited include working at peak efficiency hours, reducing

distractions and interruptions, being in an environment conducive to increased

concentration, and reducing incidental absence (Baruch, 2000; Bélanger, 1999). Other

organizational level incentives for opting to introduce remote work, Huws (1992) found

indications for improved productivity, reliability and work quality among teleworkers

(see also Salomon & Shamir, 1985). They were perceived as more loyal, less likely to

avoid work (i.e., be “absent” from home during work time) and had lower tendency to

change employer.

Productivity at the organizational level has frequently been contradictory. In a

review of current literature in remote work, Shin et al. (2000) reported that changes in

teleworker productivity were consistently of interest to a number of studies (Di Martino

& Wirth, 1990; DuBrin, 1991; Olson, 1989). These studies were remarkably alike in

pointing out the positive effect of telework in enhancing individual productivity.

However, except for a few state-commissioned studies such as the Evaluation Audit and

Review (EAR) Group Report, research that systematically investigated productivity

changes resulting from telework has been rare. Most studies merely quoted anecdotal

program reports or referenced nominal discussions based on hearsay without mentioning

methodological details. The authors also noted that there are methodological and

conceptual weaknesses in existing literature as well.

Research Design

Methodology

This study used grounded theory as the primary research methodology, first

outlined by Glaser and Strauss in 1967 (Charmaz, 2006). Grounded theory is an inductive

methodology and the objective is to discover “theory from data” rather than “deducing

testable hypotheses from existing theories” (Charmaz, 2006; Glaser & Strauss, 1967).

This method has been chosen because of its strength in helping the researcher discover

new ideas, theories and patterns in people, events and behavior. Grounded theory was

selected for this inductive study because this method seeks to explain and describe while

also uncovering relevant changing conditions; therefore, it captures how individuals

respond and interpret the consequences of their actions (Corbin & Strauss, 1990). This

approach facilitates posing open-ended questions and, through induction, discovers the

concepts, categories, and themes, influencing employee productivity and engagement.

Constant comparison and contrast were used throughout, within and between the

interview and analysis process to reveal emerging themes and concepts (Charmaz, 2006).

Using the grounded approach, we learned from the lived experiences of our

research participants who experience the current state of the workplace. Grounded

Theory, as Charmaz outlined, allows us to compare data as the research is conducted

through a process of initial, focused, axial and theoretical coding (Charmaz, 2006). We

developed and compared codes as the research progressed and our theories started to

formulate. Almost immediately, we found that one dynamic was obvious when

interviewing knowledge workers, the location of where they worked was sometimes at

home, and sometime in their office. It became clear that remote work and work flexibility

were prevailing in the workplace. This initial insight gave us the advantage to create two

groups of employees based on this characteristic, on-site and remote knowledge workers.

Based on this immediate finding, interviewees were chosen based on two

determining factors, one being the employee either have to work on-site or remote and

that the employee will have to be a knowledge worker. We report our findings using this

distinction in a manner that this order can help us to better delineate if there were any

differences in how they experience the workplace.

Next, we discuss the characteristics of our sample in more detail.

Sample

The sample obtained for this study included 20 working professionals from a

variety of organizations and industries, with operations in the United States. Participants

worked in a variety of areas, including human resources, infrastructure, engineering,

program design/software development, operations, supply chain, and other management

areas, no sales, traditional over the phone customer service professionals or consulting

professionals were considered for the interviews, given the natural tendency for this jobs

to either travel, work from home and travel constantly. As shown in Table 2, the gender

representation was 60% females and 40% males. 55% of the participants were remote

workers and the other 45% reported to work from a formal office. As far as role in the

organization, 40% of the participants reported to have manager responsibilities and 60%

reported to have individual contributor role. Managers were not primarily on-site, and

individual contributors were not primarily remote. Our sample generational distribution

included at least three commonly recognized generations. We coded them separately for

easy identification (BB = baby boomers, X = Generation X or baby boosters, Y =

Millennials).

Table 2. Sample Demographics

Data Collection

We conducted semi-structured critical incident interviews. In most cases, the

interviews lasted between 45 and 75 minutes. Interviews were done between September

and November 2013. Ten interviews were conducted in person and ten over the

telephone. Each interview was audio recorded by the principle researcher and transcribed

by a professional transcription service. All interviewees and companies were guaranteed

confidentiality and anonymity. All names are pseudonyms.

We began each interview asking the participant to share a brief summary about

themselves and how they got to get to where they are in their careers. Following this

warm-up question allowing for the capturing of demographic data, we asked interviewees

to share three very detailed experiences: (1) a time in their careers when they felt really

excited about the work that they were doing, and a specific example of project/work they

had executed in their careers when they felt they really exceeded performance at work or

were more productive; (2) a time in their careers when they felt not as

excited/demotivated about the work that they were doing, and a specific example of

project they had executed in their careers when they did not feel good about their

performance at work; and 3) a time when their companies introduced new

tools/technologies, and how those new tools/technologies affected their work either

positively or negatively. In some cases, we expanded questions in those areas where they

were more willing to get deeper in their responses.

Using probes to elicit their thoughts and feelings during these interactions, we

captured rich detail from these narratives. Emotions observed during the interviews were

also noted, such as when an interviewee’s eyes welled up with emotion describing

distress or excitement captured through expressive gestures, raised voices and shifts in

vocal tone. Additional probes assisted in capturing how they experience the work

environment around them, changes in the work environment, which became relevant to

the research. Other questions such as why they come to work, what they like and dislike

about the role, ideas they may have had to improve a positive experience in the

workplace, were also used to gain a more robust understanding of their motivations and

what drives engagement at a personal level (see Appendix A).

Data Analysis

Coding evolved through a systematic process using a grounded approach to data

collection with validation from literature. Using initial coding technique, transcripts were

coded which were used to compare the experiences not only to others but also the

literature (Charmaz, 2006). Through the initial coding phase, 392 codes that were

substantial in nature were identified at the beginning of the coding. During focused

coding, the codes were grouped by recurring themes and concepts that started to take

form. The iterative initial and focused coding processes required constant validation and

9 follow-up interviews with some of the participants of an average of 15 to 20 minutes

call, to validate the concepts that emerged. Once the focused coding was completed, we

began axial coding where the logical themes were formed. Through the process of axial

coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1990), these codes were reduced to approximately 42 codes.

The reduction was a result of unifying codes that were considered to be similar or the

same and eliminating those that were not relevant to this research. During this process,

some codes were subsumed into others, and some categorized as “belonging” to more

than one of several higher-level categories.

Table 3 provides a view of the coding. The left column provides a view of the

primary categories identified; the second column provides the sub-categories. The third

column provides the most common and similar statements. Lastly, column four provides

the coding and summarizes at the bottom the 45 codes. The last columns provide the

number of times the comment was mentioned as well as the distinction of the type of

worker that accounted for the comment.

Table 3. Main Themes Coded

Findings

Our findings identified several overarching themes, highlighting the perceptions

of the interview group as a whole. These findings also confirmed earlier research that

exists today about the factors that drive productivity and engagement for knowledge

workers. In addition, based on our initial learning from practice and through theory, the

findings confirm that the factors that drive productivity and engagement are not only

internal management factors but also factors that are strongly related to the motivations

and desires of the employee. The core findings are listed below:

Nature of engagement

1.! Leadership: Having the right leadership that is supportive, trusting, provides the right direction and provides opportunities for development is essential for both categories of employees, remote and on-site workers.

2.! Job Engagement & Self-Efficacy: Employees feel more engaged when they were successful at their work, especially when working in interesting and challenging work, that can provide the opportunity to solve problems, be empowered and create new meaningful things. This was a top driver of engagement in both categories

3.! ICT Tools Utilization and Availability: Having the right technology to work available and working for companies that have a strong culture of working with tools, was perceived as a key driver of engagement. This appears to be of higher importance for remote workers than for on-site workers

4.! Work Location Flexibility: Having the opportunity to work remotely, as well as having the opportunity to work on-site and being at the same time able to choose to work from home when needed. this opportunity appears to drive higher levels of commitments to the company and the supervisors, the employee seem to value that.

5.! Self-Efficacy: Having the opportunities to self-direct work, lead, demonstrate capabilities to drive complex and significant work career advancement and opportunity to learn new things and advance

Nature of Disengagement

1.! Ineffective leadership: Conversely, not having the right leadership that is supportive, trusting, was a big driver of disengagement in both categories.

2.! Lack of Project Success: Not being successful in projects or special initiatives, either because of lack of resources or support from their manager

3.! Lack of engagement with Work: Not being challenged in their work and not having the opportunity to utilize their skills to the maximum potential. This was more relevant for remote workers than for on-site workers.

New Workplace Practices - Drivers of engagement

1.! Availability of Work Flexibility Programs: This was found to be a top driver of engagement for those employees working on-site.

2.! Remote Work Availability: This was found to be a top driver of engagement for those employees working on-site.

3.! Availability of Remote Work Technology: Having tools like WebEx, IBM® Sametime® or other communication tool enables speed of communications and enhances productivity.

New Workplace Practices - Drivers of Disengagement

1.! Remote Work Experience/Absence of leadership: The lack of presence of leadership with remote workers is creating disengagement, mainly due to the lack of communication and attention to participate in critical work, career development, and learning opportunities compared to their on-site peers.

2.! Remote Work & Work Location Flexibility: The lack of alternatives to work remotely and the lack of opportunity to be on-site but still be able to work one or two because sometimes managers are not as flexible, even if the type of work that they perform allows them to.

Other New Workplace Dynamics

1.! Remote Work Experience is Becoming the Norm: Remote work is clearly becoming the norm in the workplace, showing signs of more acceptance by peers and management. This is coming in different types of intensity.

2.! Remote Workforce Technology Availability Increasing and Enabling Productivity: The availability of tools is a clearly driving productivity, collaboration and speed of the work, enabling both, remote and on-site workers to be more productive. It was previously noted that technology is also a top driver of engagement.

We next synthesize the findings in four key areas driving productivity and

engagement, and provide detail for each one of them.

Finding 1: Leadership effectiveness arose as important amongst both worker

categories. And as expected, the “lack of leadership effectiveness” is also the one

driver of disengagement. This is common between remote and on-site employees.

The respondents (both remote and non-remote) in this study reported common

experiences that suggest that Effective leadership is equally critical for both categories of

employees, which means leadership appears to be a factor that is independent of the

location, with a total count of 49 positive comments. Paradoxically, ineffective leadership

was also one of most mentioned drivers of disengagement in both categories, with a total

count of 21negative comments. This first finding correlates with existent theory in the

field. Harter, Schmidt and Hayes’ (2003, as cited in Simpson, 2009) model of employee

engagement identifies four antecedents that are necessary for employee engagement to

occur: clarity of expectations and basic materials and equipment that is provided; feelings

of contribution to the organization; feeling a sense of belonging to something other than

oneself; and feeling as though there are opportunities to discuss progress and grow

(Simpson, 2009: 9). At least three key items very similar to this assertion were noted

during the interview process. Employees noted that a major driver of disengagement

where cases, when the manager did not provide the right direction, kept changing the

objectives, and did not provide opportunities for growth. Conversely, some employees

expressed that the best times they felt engaged was because they felt strongly supported

by their managers. Figure 8 provides key quotes supporting this finding.

Figure 8. Key Quotes Supporting Finding #1 – Leadership as a Driver of Engagement

“The number one thing that is, it can be a motivator or de-motivator, is my manager. So, if it’s a bad manager or a manager who micromanages or doesn’t align my skills and kind of give me the support that I need, um, that would be a negative part of my, um, experience, and I’ve had that in, you know, in, in a role before. Um, I’ve had a really bad, you know, director before and I’ve had, you know, good ones, and, and then I’ve had two great ones, and I’m, I’m reporting to a great one right now. And, so, I’d say the top satisfaction is my manager. “ – Remote Worker

“It was the connection and the support for my manager that was a key differentiator. Of course, I was up for the task, but he really made me felt he was behind me and that um, counts a lot you know. It’s good to know your manager is supportive, and it is there for you. Not only that, I think leadership has an effect at all levels. The manager of my manager was also a great supporter of my career, and as a consequence, I felt that I was super committed to them and the work that I was doing um, you know, I felt I should do my best!” – On-site Worker

“If you boiled it all down, it was a major mission that was really exciting like I mention um, unfortunately, did not have huge support from my manager. It was almost like my manager was not communicating, and kept changing the direction constantly, it was very confusing, um. And I felt I had put my career in jeopardy because we were not making any progress, I was lucky to find another job in another department; otherwise, I would have left the company”. – Remote Worker

“The one thing that really drives me crazy about my manager is the lack of communication and the constant change of plans, we can’t accomplish anything right because nothing is solid with him um…that makes me feel like we are not being successful. “ – Remote Worker

“I think the things that have always, seemed really bad are things that people ask me to do, tell, tell me to do, and suggest somehow that it’s mission critical, practicing vital information that needs to get done, and I work at it really hard, and then see it go absolutely nowhere. It’s, it just kills your soul to have somebody set a direction for you, and to have it go nowhere. And I can see that I’ve done that a lot, where somebody else has need me to do this., and I disagree, but I go off, and I do it because you know, you’re trying to be the good soldier, and it’s just so awful when nothing gets done with it”-On-site Worker

Finding 2: Engagement with the work, their jobs and the opportunity to enhance

workers’ learning, enhancing worker self-efficacy. This is common among remote

and on-site employees.

The respondents (both remote and non-remote) in this study reported common

experiences that suggest that being engaged with the work is equally critical for both

categories of employees, which means work engagement appears to be a factor that is

independent of the location, with accounted for 35 comments. The opportunity to work in

projects, products or work where the employee has a passion for, and where there is

excitement about the work that needs to be done was another are that accounted for 25

comments. The opportunity to learn and participate in challenging work, innovative work

that can make them growth professionally through the experience. Other factors reported

by employees included teamwork, having a sense of adding value and being empowered

in the work are also important drivers of engagement. This second finding also correlates

with existing proven theories related to productivity and engagement of employees.

Bandura (1978) defined self-efficacy as “a judgment of one's ability to execute a

particular behavior pattern” (p. 240). Wood and Bandura (1989) expanded upon this

definition by suggesting that self-efficacy beliefs form a central role in the regulatory

process through which an individual's motivation and performance attainments are

governed. Self-efficacy judgments also determine how much effort people will spend on

a task and how long they will persist with it. People with strong self-efficacy beliefs exert

greater efforts to master a challenge while those with weak self-efficacy beliefs are likely

to reduce their efforts or even quit (Bandura & Schunk, 1981; Brown & Inouyne, 1978;

Schunk, 1981; Weinberg, Gould & Jackson, 1979). Our observation here is that when

employees exhibit strong self-efficacy are more prone to be successful. The theory

appears to be particularly well suited to studying remote work. The remote employees

work with minimal supervision and rely heavily on their own abilities and initiative to

perform their job tasks. Information technology is the typical medium used to