writing week 3 #1

Synthesis Essay

WRTG 394

2

Teleworking

A review of the popular, trade, and scholarly literature on teleworking has shown three

major categories: the impact of teleworking on employees who telework, the impact of

teleworking on the social and working relationships among all workers, and management

strategies and behaviors that influence the success of a teleworking arrangement.

The Impact of Teleworking on Employees Who Telework

Studies show that teleworkers can feel isolated and detect increased demands on them as

a result of teleworking. One common theme is stress. Teleworkers can “suffer from heightened

stress and anxiety if it is not easy for them to switch off” (Crunden, 2016, p. 11). Such stress

might be contributed to by longer work hours. Teleworkers are likely to work more hours and

less likely to work a regular schedule (Noonan & Glass, 2012). In fact, Kossek, Thompson, and

Lautsch (2015) shed light on both increased stress and longer work hours as they identified

several “traps” that can ensnare teleworkers, including one of “altered work-life dynamics” (p.

7). Employees, they argue, can feel “isolated and distant from the social life of the firm” and,

thus, not feel as much of a part of the organizational culture as non-teleworking employees do (p.

7). Furthermore, “job or family creep” can intensify with a teleworking arrangement, often

caused by the inability to set boundaries between work and family lives (p. 8). In fact,

“…heavier users of work-life flexibility supports actually experienced increased work-family

conflict” (p. 8). Thus, Kossek et al. concluded that, while teleworking is often designed to reduce

stress among workers, it can often increase stress among workers who are unable to separate

work from family life in a clear fashion.

3

Teleworkers can also sense a different set of evaluation criteria from that of non-

teleworking employees. Caillier (2013), in his study of teleworking federal employees,

concluded that employees who chose not to telework did not report that they were being

managed for results as much as teleworking employees reported. Caillier surmised that it is

possible that teleworkers are evaluated more on “output-based controls,” while non-teleworking

employees are evaluated more on “behavior-based controls” (p. 650). It is possible that workers

who telework face more pressure to produce results than employees who work on-site.

The Impact of Teleworking on Social and Working Relationships

Among Workers

The literature on the relationships between teleworkers and non-teleworkers is

mixed. Some studies show a sense of unfairness on both sides, while other studies show that

social and working relationships are not compromised when some employees telework and

others do not. However, the results seem to be influenced by the level of intensity that an

employee teleworks.

Some research indicates that tension can result when teleworking is offered. One of the

“traps” that Kossek, Thompson, and Lautsch (2015) identified was the “fairness trap” (p. 8).

Workers who do not telework can feel unfairly treated if others are allowed to. In such cases, a

clear understanding of why it is allowed for some and not for others is needed. The authors

maintain that if an organization allows teleworking on a case-by-case basis and decides to allow

teleworking for some employees who show a need for it, then employees who do not show an

apparent need can feel slighted. An example they give is while one employee might have elderly

relatives to care for and be allowed to telecommute, another employee who has a pet to care for

might not be given the opportunity to telecommute.

4

In addition, employees working on-site can feel that more is demanded of them because

they are not teleworking. Kossek, Thompson, and Lautsch (2015) noted that at one high-tech

company, employees were more likely to leave the company because of a perceived need that

they had to be available for last-minute tasks due to the fact that they were working on-site. In

addition, the authors found that employees felt that they had to be more flexible to arrange

meetings around teleworkers’ schedules and had to rely on more formal communication methods

like email rather than face-to-face interactions when communicating with teleworking

employees. The authors concluded, “…co-workers may resent any apparent favoritism by

supervisors and any appearance that work is being transferred to them because of the flexibility-

user’s work arrangement” (pp. 9-10).

On the other hand, teleworking employees can feel a sense of unfairness because of a

feeling of higher expectations and social isolation. Teleworking can result in increased

expectations from management. Noonan and Glass (2012) noted that “…the ability of employees

to work at home may actually allow employers to raise expectations for work availability during

evenings and weekends and foster longer workdays and workweeks” (p. 45). Moreover, Kossek,

Thompson, and Lautsch (2015) argued that the physical separation that employees who work

from home feel from employees who work in the office can lead to a sense of lower respect

among colleagues and management. In an analysis of two high-tech companies, they found that

the physical distance teleworkers maintained “reduced the amount that individuals working

flexibly felt respected, and in turn made them feel less like full members of the organization”

(p. 7). This effect is most likely contributed to by the lack of immediacy that teleworkers discern.

Caillier (2013) noted that because they “do not receive the same amount of face-to-face contact

as traditional workers,…a lot of information teleworkers receive is sent through less rich

5

mediums” (p. 641). Thus, teleworking employees can sense that higher expectations are placed

upon them with lower quality communication channels available to them.

However, Gajendran and Harrison (2007) found that social relationships among fellow

workers were not compromised as a result of the opportunity for some employees to

telework. They noted that, in their analysis, “being a commuter does not appear to damage

social ties with others at work” (p. 1535). However, it should be noted that their study did show

that the intensity with which an employee teleworks can “amplify a negative or damaging effect

of telecommuting on coworker relationship quality” (p. 1535). They defined high-intensity

telecommuting as working from home more than 2.5 days per week. Thus, their study did

indicate that negative repercussions can occur among employees as a result of teleworking, but

the frequency with which an employee teleworks seemed to be the pivotal factor. Their results

are echoed by those of Torten, Reaiche, and Caraballo (2016), who concluded that “The most

significant effect on teleworking success was demonstrated by the number of days worked per

week” (p. 325).

Overall, some research shows that a lack of inclusion can create resentment from

teleworkers toward those who are able to work on-site, while a sense of unfairness can pervade

the sentiments of employees working on-site toward those who are allowed to telework. Other

studies conclude that such resentment does not necessarily result from teleworking, but that high-

intensity teleworking demonstrates a higher propensity for such conflict than low-intensity

teleworking.

Management Strategies for Supervisors Overseeing Teleworking Arrangements

The dynamics mentioned above lead to the conclusion that supervisors have to manage

the teleworking arrangement effectively in order to experience positive results with

6

it. Management has to be clear on its criteria for establishing teleworking policies, effective in

its methods of including teleworkers in the day-to-day operations of the office, and generous in

the training offered for teleworkers.

The literature suggests that teleworking should be allowed based on ability and

experience, not on personal need. Kossek, Thompson, and Lautsch (2015) warned, “Managers

should not let an employee’s family status factor into the decision-making process when

considering whether to offer workplace flexibility to employees” (p. 9). Daniels supported this

notion as well, maintaining that teleworking should be an earned privilege (as cited in Freifeld,

2014).

Moreover, management can help create a successful teleworking arrangement by

including teleworkers in the day-to-day operations of the workplace. Crunden (2016) maintained

that teleworkers must “feel like they are part of a cohesive team” and that they should be

included “even where last-minute ad hoc meetings are arranged” (p. 11). In fact, Daniels argued

that the level of engagement that employees sense is not determined by whether or not the

organization allows teleworking but rather by “management systems and behaviors” (as cited in

Freifeld, 2014, p. 16).

This concept leads to another important characteristic of effective teleworking

arrangements: training. Yost recommends a combination of in-person or web-based training

meetings (as cited in Friefeld, 2014), while Stanley confirms, “We see more success in

organizations that train managers, telecommuters, and co-workers in some aspect of teleworking

policy, organizational culture, and senior management’s views on this way of working” (as cited

in Freifeld, 2014, p. 11).

7

Conclusion

The literature on teleworking shows that employees who telework can feel isolated and

can often sense a higher set of expectations put on them than those that are put on non-

teleworking employees. However, analysis also shows that non-teleworking employees detect

unfair treatment if the guidelines for when to allow teleworking are not clearly

defined. Moreover, non-teleworking employees can feel that more is expected of them than is

expected of teleworking employees because non-teleworking employees are working on-site. It

is interesting to note that both groups can feel that more is expected of them, but for different

reasons. The frequency with which an employee teleworks seems to have an impact on the

significance of such tension.

Management can help create a successful teleworking arrangement by setting clear

guidelines on who is allowed to telework when and by providing training on how to

telework. Research indicates that training programs result in increased levels of success for

companies and organizations that allow employees to work from a distance.

8

References

Caillier, J. G. (2013). Does teleworking affect managing for results and constructive feedback? A

research note. Canadian Public Administration, (4), 638-654. Retrieved from

http://www.ipac.ca/research-cpa

Crunden, N. (2016). Help mobile workers feel less remote. Occupational Health,

68(6), 11.

Freifeld, L. (2014). Home Improvement? Training, 53(4), 16-20.

Gajendran, R. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2007). The good, the bad, and the unknown about

telecommuting: Meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1524-1541. Retrieved from

http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/apl/

Kossek, E. E., Thompson, R. J., & Lautsch, B. A. (2015). Balanced workplace flexibility:

Avoiding the traps. California Management Review, 57(4), 5-25.

doi:10.1525/cmr.2015.57.4.5

Noonan, M. C., & Glass, J. L. (2012). The hard truth about telecommuting. Monthly Labor

Review, 38-45. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/mlr/

Torten, R., Reaiche, C., & Caraballo, E. L. (2016). Teleworking in the new milleneum. Journal

of Developing Areas, (5), 317-326. Retrieved from https://muse.jhu.edu/journal/258