The International Journal of Human Resource

Management

ISSN: 0958-5192 (Print) 1466-4399 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rijh20

Does telework status affect the behavior and

perception of supervisors? Examining task
behavior and perception in the telework context

Seejeen Park & Yoon Jik Cho

To cite this article: Seejeen Park & Yoon Jik Cho (2020): Does telework status affect
the behavior and perception of supervisors? Examining task behavior and perception in
the telework context, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, DOI:
10.1080/09585192.2020.1777183

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2020.1777183

Published online: 11 Jun 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 7

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rijh20
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2020.1777183

Does telework status affect the behavior and

perception of supervisors? Examining task behavior
and perception in the telework context
Seejeen Parka and Yoon Jik Chob
a
Department of Public Administration, KwangWoon University, Seoul, South Korea;
b
Department of Public Administration, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Research in telework has mostly focused on studying tele- Telework; flexible work
workers themselves or comparing the phenomenological arrangement; supervision;
experience of nonteleworkers and teleworkers. Thus, super- performance management
visors in the telework context have been a relatively
neglected area of study. The current study compares the
task behaviors of nonteleworking and teleworking supervi-
sors and investigates the factors that affect supervisors’ per-
ceived organizational impact of telework. The findings
indicate that teleworking supervisors tend to spend less
time doing work that can be accomplished only at the
office. For teleworking supervisors, management support
for telework, work assignment fairness, teleworker supervi-
sion experience and teleworker supervision proficiency all
positively affected the perceived organizational impact of
telework. In the case of nonteleworking supervisors, only
work assignment fairness and teleworker supervision profi-
ciency positively affected the perceived organizational
impact of telework.

Introduction
Telework, a flexible work arrangement that allows employees to use
information communication technology (ICT) to work at an approved
alternative worksite rather than the traditional office setting, has been a
popular topic of interest in the management literature (Bentley et al.,
2016; Choi, 2018; Kaplan et al., 2018; P
erez et al., 2004; Sewell & Taskin,
2015; Wajcman et al., 2010). However, studies have not reached a con-
sensus on the positive and negative outcomes of telework, as the litera-
ture offers mixed results (de Vries et al., 2019; Martin & MacDonnell,
2012; Maruyama & Tietze, 2012; Py€ ori€a, 2011). Moreover, research in

CONTACT Yoon Jik Cho yoonjikcho@yonsei.ac.kr Department of Public Administration, Yonsei

University, Seoul 03722, South Korea
ß 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 S. PARK AND Y. J. CHO

telework is mostly focused on studying teleworkers themselves or com-

paring the phenomenological experience of nonteleworkers and tele-
workers; thus, only a few studies have focused on the colleagues of
teleworkers, including supervisors (Collins et al., 2016; Fogarty et al.,
2011). Examples of the topics of these studies include the role of super-
visor support for telework in achieving work–life balance (Julien et al.,
2011), the effect of manager leadership style on teleworker outcomes
(Dahlstrom, 2013), telecommuting and supervisor relationship quality
(Gajendran & Harrison, 2007), and managerial resistance as a deterrent
of telework engagement (Mello, 2007).
Nevertheless, studies related to supervisors in telework also present
common limitations. First, teleworkers are known to spend less time at
the office and to engage in fewer formal and informal meetings with
coworkers (e.g. subordinates, supervisors) than nonteleworkers. Such
behaviors are known to create problems, including isolation at work
and hindrance to teamwork by reducing time for interaction (Bailey &
Kurland, 2002; Denison et al., 2014; Morganson et al., 2010; P
erez
et al., 2004). However, whether teleworking supervisors who direct
employees would demonstrate the same behavior has not been empiric-
ally tested. Second, heretofore, the majority of studies have evaluated
the success of telework based on the perceptions of teleworking
employees. Therefore, the perceptions of supervisors who oversee the
teleworkers was largely neglected. Organizations adopting telework rely
on supervisors to implement the policy and to direct teleworkers
(Lautsch et al., 2009). Thus, to evaluate the success of telework, the per-
spective of managers on the effects of telework as well as the implemen-
tation process (e.g. supervising teleworkers) requires attention. Third, a
considerable portion of research on telework adoption accepts techno-
logical determinism perspectives, but decisions to implement telework
are not completely based on ICT, implying that technological determin-
ism alone cannot explain the process of telework adoption (P
erez et al.,
2004). The current study follows the approach of contemporary studies
adopting the sociotechnical systems (STS) theory approach, which pos-
its that organizations are open systems that consist of a technical sub-
system, a personnel subsystem, an organizational structure or work/job
design subsystem, and the environment (B
elanger et al., 2013). Finally,
supervisors who are not currently teleworking may be required to
supervise teleworking subordinates. Most studies have not yet
accounted for this phenomenon. As the success of telework implemen-
tation is largely affected by supervisors, the degree to which the behav-
iors and perceptions of nonteleworking and teleworking supervisors
differ must be considered.
 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 3

The current study seeks to investigate the behaviors and perceptions of

supervisors in the telework context. In doing so, the study compares the
behaviors of nonteleworking and teleworking supervisors and investigates
what factors promote supervisors’ positive views on the organizational
impact of telework. Adopting the job demands-resources model to pro-
vide an explanation for the challenges supervisors face in managing tele-
work, this research illustrates the core hypothesized relationships about
the behaviors of both nonteleworking and teleworking supervisors and
the determinants of the perceived impact of telework. First, the current
study begins by reviewing studies related to the positive and negative
results of the implementation of telework and argues that supervisors in
the telework context warrant more research. Second, the study reviews
the literature related to supervisors in the telework context to emphasize
the role of supervisors and the possible problems and challenges arising
from the implementation of telework from the managerial perspective.
With the discussion, the relevant hypotheses are proposed. These
hypotheses include testing whether teleworking supervisors spend less
time on communication, completing tasks at the office, and supervision
than nonteleworking supervisors. To ascertain the determinants of a
supervisor’s perceived organizational impact of telework, several factors
are examined based on the job demands-resources perspective. Finally,
based on the results of the empirical analysis, this study offers implica-
tions for future research and practice.

Impact of telework implementation

Heretofore, in the literature, the effect of adopting telework showed
mixed results. Studies that advocate the benefits of telework have pro-
posed positive organizational and individual-level outcomes as follows.
First, adopting telework can increase organizational productivity due to
improvements in organizational flexibility, increased employee productiv-
ity, the utilization of talented employees from outside of the immediate
geographical area, and reduced healthcare costs from using telework
instead of sick leave (Burbach & Day, 2012; Caillier, 2013; Maruyama &
Tietze, 2012; Overmyer, 2011). Second, telework, as one type of work
arrangement, can be used as a tool for the recruitment and retention of
a high-quality workforce (Eversole et al., 2012; Kaczmarczyk, 2008;
Snyder, 2012). Third, teleworking can increase organizational commit-
ment because employees feel more committed to the organization when
they are allowed to work more flexibly compared to a traditional office
setting work environment (Martin & MacDonnell, 2012). Fourth, tele-
working helps employees balance work and family issues by saving time
4 S. PARK AND Y. J. CHO

spent on commuting and offering opportunities to work from home or

from regional satellite facilities (Caillier, 2012, 2013; Major et al., 2008;
Maruyama & Tietze, 2012). Finally, teleworkers usually demonstrate a
lower absentee rate, as they can continue to work from home even when
they are sick and experience lower levels of stress because they manage
their own work schedule (Snyder, 2012). These benefits lead to actual
outcomes in the workplace. According to the 2012 Federal Employee
Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) results, teleworkers show higher employee
engagement and satisfaction (Denison et al., 2014).
In contrast, other studies contend that, despite the well-known benefits
of telework adoption, telework implementation may cause problems.
First, because telework is usually considered one type of work benefit,
being denied such a benefit can be perceived as unfair treatment, result-
ing in dissatisfaction and increased turnover intention among nontele-
workers (Caillier, 2013; Mahler, 2012). As revealed in recent focus group
interviews conducted by the U.S. Government Accountability Office and
Office of Personnel Management, resistance from managers to adopting
telework and issues related to fairness in telework eligibility are often
observed (Cook et al., 2013; O’Keeffe, 2008; Weisberg & Porell, 2011).
Second, telework can harm teamwork because teleworkers may not be
present on occasions at which all team members must meet together as a
team to share ideas and solve problems (P
erez et al., 2004). Third, tele-
workers may experience feelings of isolation through less communication
and contact with supervisors and coworkers (Cascio, 2000; Greer &
Payne, 2014). In addition, the more that employees telework, the more
they may perceive themselves as isolated at work because they miss out
on social interactions (e.g. office gossip, information in meetings) among
colleagues (Bailey & Kurland, 2002; Denison et al., 2014; Morganson
et al., 2010).
Finally, a few studies conclude that teleworkers, in general, show
minor differences in work motivation and job satisfaction compared to
nonteleworkers (Caillier, 2012; Morganson et al., 2010). In contrast to
studies that claim that telework can be used as a tool to retain high-qual-
ity workers, Caillier (2013) stresses that factors such as job satisfaction,
promotion, and professional development opportunities have a stronger
impact on turnover intentions than teleworking. Moreover, Golden and
Veiga (2005), analyzing the data from 321 employees, found a positive
curvilinear association between teleworking hours and job satisfaction,
indicating that teleworking does not always lead to increased job
satisfaction.
As discussed above, the positive and negative results of telework
implementation have been thoroughly discussed in the literature.
 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 5

Nevertheless, as the focus of the studies in the contemporary literature

was on teleworking and nonteleworking employees, only a few studies
sought to recognize and account for supervisors in the telework context.
Thus, there is a gap in the literature. Moreover, regarding the knowledge
of the current study, no research in human resource management has
yet compared the perceptions and behaviors of nonteleworking and tele-
working supervisors in the telework context. To address such gaps in the
literature, the current study first reviews the literature related to supervi-
sors in telework environments and then offers the relevant hypotheses.

Supervisors in a telework environment

Role of supervisors in telework implementation
Most of the extant research on human resource management has focused
on investigating the effects of telework adoption. Such an approach
implies that the adoption of telework itself is a major determinant of
organizational outcomes. However, organizational decisions to use tele-
work do not solely rely on ICT, meaning that technological determinism
cannot completely explain the process of telework adoption (P
erez et al.,
2004). Therefore, several contemporary studies have adopted the STS
theory approach proposed by Trist (1981) (see Walker et al., 2008, for
review) to account for factors other than merely the technological aspect
of telework. According to the STS theory, organizations are open systems
that consist of a technical subsystem, a personnel subsystem, an organ-
izational structure or a work/job design subsystem, and the environment,
where inputs are transformed into outputs (B
elanger et al., 2013).
Because those subsystems work together, ICT is not the only factor
determining the result of telework implementation; factors included in
personnel subsystems (e.g. workforce characteristics, psychological
aspects, degree of professionalism) and organizational structure subsys-
tems (e.g. formalization, centralization, complexity) also affect telework-
ing in organizations (B
elanger et al., 2013; Bentley et al., 2016). A more
recent study by Bentley et al. (2016), following the STS approach by
B
elanger et al. (2013) and analyzing the survey data of more than 800
teleworkers in 28 New Zealand organizations, found that organizational
social support and teleworker support increased teleworker job satisfac-
tion and mitigated psychological strain.
In general, supervisors are responsible for motivating their employees
to perform to the fullest extent and for supporting the management
(Park, 2014). Supervisors in teleworking organizations perform the same
roles. Organizations adopting telework depend on supervisors to imple-
ment policy, direct teleworkers, and manage teleworkers so they perform
6 S. PARK AND Y. J. CHO

well (Lautsch et al., 2009). In a telework context, supervisor support can

lead to positive outcomes such as higher level of work–life quality and
improved job performance (Kowalski & Swanson, 2005). Moreover,
Kowalski and Swanson (2005) argue that teleworkers’ trust in their
supervisor is a critical success factor for successful implementation of
telework. Therefore, supervisors must display a positive stance on an
employee’s telework arrangement, provide fair and equitable treatment,
and conduct results-based performance evaluation rather than face-time
increases. Thus, if the resistance to adopting telework occurs from super-
visors, it may be a major barrier to the successful implementation of tele-
work (Kaplan et al., 2018).
Kaplan et al. (2018) explains that supervisors, in managing teleworkers,
consider the possibility for decreased communication and coordination
with teleworkers, along with the potential inequity of allowing only a
certain number of employees to telework. For that reason, the supervi-
sor’s positive perception of telework implementation is required for suc-
cessful telework management. In the case that supervisors send direct or
indirect messages to employees that may discourage telework, employees
cannot actively use flexibility options such as telework because they per-
ceive their work climate as unsupportive of teleworking (Putnam
et al., 2014).
Therefore, when an organization adopts telework, based on the STS
approach, the supervisors, who represent the human element aspect of
the STS, play a key role in implementing telework by providing support
for both the organization and its teleworkers. In that process, supervisors
face a number of challenges in managing teleworkers.

Challenges for supervisors in managing teleworkers

The managerial challenges of controlling, coordinating, training, evaluat-
ing, and communicating with employees who telework (e.g. work
remotely) and maintaining a sound performance system are dismaying
(Cascio, 2000; Hiltrop, 2000; Lamond, 2000; Maruyama & Tietze, 2012;
Taskin & Devos, 2005). The job demands-resources model provides an
explanation of the challenges in telework management. The model sug-
gested by Bakker and Demerouti (2007) argues that strain and motiv-
ation come from the balance/imbalance of job demands and job
resources. Job demands refer to ‘physical, psychological, social, or organ-
izational aspects of the job’, such as work pressure and unfavorable phys-
ical environment, whereas job resources indicate job aspects that are
functional in achieving goals and reducing job demands (Bakker &
Demerouti, 2007, p. 312). From the model’s perspective, employees who
 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 7

use telework obtain resources with increased flexibility and autonomy.

However, supervisors who manage those teleworkers confront more
demands on their jobs. Supervisors are required to monitor whether tele-
workers focus on their tasks, communicate with teleworkers to update
them on recent information about the organization’s undertakings, and
facilitate their interaction with colleagues not to feel isolated. In sum-
mary, supervisors who manage teleworkers face greater challenges than
those who do not manage teleworkers. A detailed description of such
challenges is offered below.
As teleworkers often work from alternative work sites (e.g. home, sat-
ellite office), they participate in less discussion with office-based col-
leagues and supervisors, thus limiting the supervisor’s capability to
manage employees using the traditional employee supervision methods
based on visibility and presence at the office (Dambrin, 2004; Fogarty
et al., 2011). Increased spatial distance may decrease communication and
information exchange speed between supervisors and teleworkers (Allen
et al., 2015). In a survey of 58 supervisors in several accounting firms,
Greer and Payne (2014) found that maintaining face-to-face communica-
tion, managing teleworkers and nonteleworkers in teams that require
interdependencies in performing tasks, and monitoring employees in
various locations are the major challenges in managing teleworkers.
Some supervisors prefer to see their employees at work rather than
managing them by ICT, which is related to the notion of ‘presenteeism’,
in which it is more important to be physically present at the office than
to perform well (Rasmussen & Corbett, 2008). Managers also worry
about the phenomenon of ‘out of sight out of mind’ (Weisberg & Porell,
2011). Thus, managers worry that telework may result in reduced control
over employees, change in supervision practices, and reduced feedback
from subordinates (Dambrin, 2004; Golden & Veiga, 2005).
Weakened control over employees may increase employee moral haz-
ard, which can exert a negative influence on organizational performance
(Lee & Hong, 2011). Cyberslacking, an employee behavior of using the
Internet for nonwork purposes during his or her regular work hours,
may occur in the telework context, as employees work from locations
that are distant from their office (O’Neill et al., 2014). Therefore, super-
visors may lack trust that teleworkers are performing their job at alterna-
tive work sites without supervision (Newman & Mathews, 1999).
These challenges and burdens require managers to change their man-
agerial practices. Some researchers argue that to effectively manage tele-
workers whom supervisors cannot frequently physically observe, as in
traditional office settings, supervisors should increase job formalization,
provide more feedback, and resort to output-based evaluations of
8 S. PARK AND Y. J. CHO

employees (Kurkland & Bailey, 1999; Lautsch et al., 2009). In contrast, a

few studies claim that adopting telework does not change the managerial
practices of supervisors. In a case study of a large Canadian telecommu-
nications company, Dimitrova (2003) revealed that the implementation
of telework for provisioners (equipment purchases and installation), fore-
casters (forecasts for telecommunication services), sales representatives
and executives did not change the control mechanisms of managers but
merely altered work schedules. However, the author’s study was based
on a qualitative review rather than a quantitative analysis.
Notwithstanding the growing research in supervising teleworkers, sev-
eral limitations still exist. First, the success of telework is assessed based
on studying teleworking individuals, but the perceptions of supervisors
who administer telework has received less attention. Although it can be
easily anticipated that, in organizations implementing telework, tele-
workers with supervisory status will exist, few studies considered tele-
working supervisors as a subject of study. To assess how telework affects
teleworkers, in addition to the extensive review of teleworkers as subor-
dinates, the impact of telework on supervisors needs to be accounted for.
Second, related to the first limitation, extant research evaluating the
organizational-level (e.g. productivity, communication) results of tele-
work implementation has relied on teleworkers’ perceptions in general
rather than on managers’ perceptions. While teleworkers with no super-
visory status only need to consider the impact of telework on themselves,
supervisors are required to consider the organizational consequences of
teleworking in making managerial decisions. Thus, the supervisors’ per-
ceptions of the organizational impact of telework on their organization
warrant attention. Finally, only a limited number of studies have consid-
ered the possible differences between teleworking and nonteleworking
supervisors in managing their subordinates and their perceptions of the
implementation of telework. More specifically, to the researchers’ know-
ledge, a direct comparison of the behaviors and perceptions of telework-
ing and nonteleworking supervisors has not been addressed in the
literature. To address the limitations of past studies and extend the lit-
erature, the current study investigates the differences in the behaviors
and perceptions of teleworking and nonteleworking supervisors.

Challenges for supervisors using telework

A large number of studies on telework have focused on teleworking indi-
viduals without supervisory responsibilities (Golden & Fromen, 2011).
Although implementing telework in organizations means that a certain
portion of supervisors will be teleworking, the differences in the
 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 9

behaviors of teleworking and nonteleworking managers in the telework

context have rarely been investigated. To the knowledge of the authors,
the work of Golden and Fromen (2011) is the only study that empirically
examines the consequences for subordinates who report to teleworking
supervisors and subordinates with nonteleworking (traditional) supervi-
sors. The authors, using a sample of 11,059 employees in a Fortune 500
company, compared the relationship between the work experiences and
work outcomes of subordinates whose managers work in a traditional
setting (office-based) and subordinates whose managers telework. The
results revealed that, compared to subordinates who had managers work-
ing in office settings, those with teleworking managers received less feed-
back, had lower workloads, had lower job satisfaction, and experienced
increased turnover intention (Golden & Fromen, 2011). Thus, past
research on supervisors in the telework context implies that there may
be additional challenges associated with supervising employees remotely.
Given the limited literature comparing teleworking and nontelework-
ing supervisors, the current study adopts the studies that investigated the
disparate supervision of teleworking and nonteleworking subordinates to
argue that supervisors, as employees themselves, may exhibit different
behaviors depending on their telework status. Several past studies have
argued that managers must provide equivalent supervision for tele-
workers and nonteleworkers. Teleworkers who feel professionally isolated
are less able to manage interpersonal relationships, feel that they lack
work-related information compared to nonteleworkers, and are more
likely to experience suboptimal decision making resulting from limited
insights and feedback (Golden et al., 2008). Furthermore, social and pro-
fessional isolation can also result in a failure to separate work and home
and a lack of awareness of internal organizational issues (Rasmussen &
Corbett, 2008). Such challenges apply to teleworking supervisors in simi-
lar ways. Teleworking supervisors, as they are less present at their office,
are likely to provide less feedback, be less aware of organizational issues
and work information, and demonstrate suboptimal supervision when
compared to nonteleworking supervisors.
Furthermore, from a job demands-resources perspective, teleworking
supervisors face additional challenges in managing subordinates com-
pared nonteleworking supervisors. When one roughly divides leadership
activities into two categories, including task-oriented activities and rela-
tionship-oriented activities (Dahlstrom, 2013), teleworking supervisors
earn their job resources for task-oriented activities with increased flexi-
bility. Nevertheless, they may confront further demands in conducting
relationship-oriented activities and suffer from lowered effectiveness in
those activities. Teleworking supervisors will experience challenges in
10 S. PARK AND Y. J. CHO

interacting and communicating with subordinates as effectively as in

periods when they work at the office. The requirement for the successful
accomplishment of those activities while teleworking will be their newly
created demand. Despite the need to successfully address this demand,
however, supervisors’ working conditions and environments will be
inferior to their traditional worksite. Teleworking supervisors must rely
on ICT to contact subordinates, which is often delayed. Furthermore,
using telephones, memos, or emails is based on less-rich mediums than
face-to-face interaction, which inevitably leads to communication diffi-
culties (Caillier, 2013). Because of such constraints, teleworking supervi-
sors are likely to spend less time on communication and may focus on
their task-oriented activities, which they can fully manage at home or at
an alternative worksite. Teleworking supervisors may also spend less
time on tasks that can be accomplished only at the office. While they
engage in those tasks when they do not telework, the amount of time
spent on them may be less when compared with their counterparts who
do not telework.
In sum, the current study hypothesizes that teleworking supervisors
will demonstrate less communication, do less office-based work, and
spend less time on supervision than nonteleworking supervisors based
on the following reasons: (1) subordinates of teleworking supervisors
tend to create a more negative organizational and supervision experience,
(2) teleworking supervisors are physically and spatially less present at the
office, and (3) teleworking supervisors face more challenges in supervi-
sion because of the constraints of providing supervision by ICT. Relevant
hypothesis is as follows.
Hypothesis 1: Teleworking supervisors will spend less time on formal
communication, informal communication, working on tasks that can be
accomplished only at the office, and supervision than nonteleworking supervisors.

Perceived impact of telework by supervisors

Scholars argue that, for telework to be successful, supervisors who par-
ticipate in telework must learn about and believe in the positive effect of
telework (e.g. Mello, 2007). To facilitate such belief, organizational sup-
port and fair practices are critical. When those supports and practices
are established, supervisors will perceive the positive impact of telework
regardless of their own participation in telework. Managerial support for
telework will function as a job resource, which will positively affect the
perception of telework effectiveness. When subordinates are divided into
teleworkers and nonteleworkers, supervisors are likely to face more com-
plexity in the coordination of interdependent tasks (Allen et al., 2015;
 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 11

Greer & Payne, 2014), one of which is the distribution of tasks between
teleworkers and nonteleworkers (Kurkland & Bailey, 1999). From this
perspective, the fair distribution of tasks will be critical in affecting the
performance of telework policy. Existing studies have demonstrated that
management support for telework and the assignment of fair workloads
between teleworkers and nonteleworkers are crucial for the success of
telework and satisfaction of teleworkers (Bentley et al., 2016; Kurkland &
Bailey, 1999; Lautsch & Kossek, 2011). The more that management sup-
ports telework, and the more fairly workloads are distributed among tele-
workers and nonteleworkers, the more telework is likely to positively
affect the organization (Allen et al., 2015; Choi, 2018; Shockley et al.,
2013). The current study seeks to examine whether such relationships
will be observed in the case of supervisors. It is expected that supervisors
who have higher levels of responsibility will respond to those factors
more sensitively. We hypothesize that managerial support and fair task
assignment will be positively associated with supervisory perception of
telework impact. Relevant hypotheses are as follows.
Hypothesis 2: Telework support by management will be positively associated with
the perceived organizational impact of telework.

Hypothesis 3: Work assignment fairness will be positively associated with the

perceived organizational impact of telework.

Individual experience and proficiency of managers are also critical in

determining telework effectiveness. Although supervisors’ roles in man-
aging teleworkers have been well-acknowledged, no research has yet
examined how teleworker supervision experience and individuals’ profi-
ciency in teleworker supervision affect the degree to which supervisors
believe that telework positively affects their organization. As managers
gain experience in supervising teleworkers, they will develop appropriate
leadership skills in dealing with teleworkers, which will improve per-
formance. Beyond a certain threshold, supervisors may feel that manag-
ing teleworkers is easier than managing nonteleworkers. If teleworking
employees diligently work and earn trust from their supervisors, then
those employees and their supervisors will experience a high-quality
leader–member exchange (LMX), which will enhance their organizational
commitment (de Vries et al., 2019). Accordingly, the current study
assumes that the more that managers experience supervising teleworkers
and perceive that supervising teleworkers is easier than supervising non-
teleworkers, the more they will believe that the implementation of tele-
work positively affects their organization. That is, this experience and
managerial proficiency of supervisors will function as job resources and
will be positively associated with perceived impact of telework.
12 S. PARK AND Y. J. CHO

Hypothesis 4: Teleworker supervision experience will be positively associated with

the perceived organizational impact of telework.

Hypothesis 5: Supervisory proficiency in telework will be positively associated with

the perceived organizational impact of telework.

Research design
The empirical analysis of the current study was conducted in four steps.
First, the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) Telework Survey
data were obtained. Second, operational definitions for the measures
were provided, and principal factor analysis (PFA) was conducted for the
dependent variable composed of multiple items. Third, a t-test was con-
ducted to compare the differences in mean time spent performing vari-
ous tasks between the teleworking and nonteleworking supervisors.
Finally, a regression analysis was conducted to investigate the perceptions
of supervisors regarding the determinants of the organizational impact of
telework and to compare the differences in teleworking and nontelework-
ing supervisors’ perceptions.

Data collection
The current study uses the telework survey data produced by the U.S.
MSPB in 2011. The telework survey data are the only data available in
the public administration literature and government archives that include
a large set of supervisor responses related to telework. The Federal View
Point Survey conducted by US Office of Personnel Management (2013)
includes items related to telework, but the number and dimensions of
items are limited for conducting an extensive analysis of teleworking and
nonteleworking supervisors. The raw data included 9,773 observations.
After sorting missing supervisor status data and excluding nonsupervi-
sors (n ¼ 6,122) and team leaders (n ¼ 1,030) who do not have supervis-
ory authority, 2,481 supervisor observations were obtained. From the
2,481 observations that included employees with supervisor, manager,
and executive status, after deleting observations with missing data in the
dependent variable and telework status (0 ¼ no, 1 ¼ yes), 1,945 observa-
tions remained. The federal agency names and the number of employees
in each agency are as follows: the Department of Commerce (683,
35.1%), Department of Defense (188, 9.7%), Department of Health and
Human Services (370, 19.0%), Department of Interior (303, 15.6%),
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (46, 2.4%), Department of
Treasury (109, 5.6%), Department of Labor (123, 6.3%), and Department
of Transportation (123, 6.3%). Telework frequency of respondents was
reported as follows: never (592, 30.44%), on an ad hoc basis (987,
 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 13

50.75%), 1 day per week (266, 13.68%), 2–3 days per week (76, 3.91%),
and 4–5 days per week (24, 1.23%).
The variables of the current study, including both independent and
dependent variables, are mostly measured by self-reports; thus, the possi-
bility of a common-source bias (CSB) exists (George & Pandey, 2017).
The problem of CSB can be mitigated. First, in the psychology literature,
using variables that can be measured by individual perception, if
explained, can be an alternative for addressing CSB (Conway & Lance,
2010; Judge et al., 2000). The current study examines the perception of
supervisors in the telework context rather than using objective measures.
The rationale is that what supervisors think of telework can be measured
only by directly asking the supervisors about their perceptions. Second,
some of the core variables, including the proportion of time spent on
certain tasks, telework status, and supervisory experience in managing
teleworkers, are relatively objective measures. As the current study seeks
to compare the behaviors and perceptions of teleworking and nontele-
working supervisors, CSB can be partially mitigated. Finally, in the field
of ICT research, numerous studies contend that perceptual measures and
actual data are correlated and manager perceptions are sufficiently
unbiased to evaluate the effects of ICT (Bayo-Moriones et al., 2013;
Ketokivi & Schroeder, 2004; San-Jose et al., 2009; Tallon et al., 2000).
Nevertheless, to diagnose the seriousness of the CSB, we conducted
Harman’s single factor test. If only one factor emerges, or the largest fac-
tor explains most of the variance, then the CSB is serious, and the valid-
ity of the analysis is low. The test result showed that four factors were
retained, and the largest factor explained approximately 27% of the total
variance, which is much lower than the threshold of 50%. Accordingly,
the empirical evidence also illustrates that the CSB is not particularly ser-
ious in the current analysis.
To analyze the data, the current study uses a t-test and multiple
regression analysis (MRA). A t-test is used to compare the differences in
behaviors in conducting tasks between teleworking and nonteleworking
supervisors. MRA is used to empirically examine the determinants of the
perceived organizational impact of telework.

Measures
Tables 1 and 2 list the specific items that compose the variables for the
t-test and MRA. The measures used for the t-test are related to the pro-
portion of time spent on various tasks. The dependent variable for the
MRA is the perceived organizational impact of telework. The independ-
ent variables are management telework support, work assignment
14 S. PARK AND Y. J. CHO

Table 1. Measures of variables for t-test.

Question Question Scale
1. Time spent on formal face-to- On average, what proportion of your Between 0 to 100%
face meeting or discussion time at work do you spend doing
the following tasks?: Having formal
face to face meetings or discussions
with colleagues, project team
members, supervisors, customers,
or others
2. Time spent on informal talking On average, what proportion of your
and collaborating time at work do you spend doing
the following tasks?: Informally
talking or collaborating colleagues,
project team members, supervisors,
customers, or others
3. Time spent on tasks only What proportion of your time do you
doable at office spend on tasks that can only be
done at your office or duty station
(e.g. tasks that require interaction
with customers or the public in a
specific location such as a hospital or
service center, or that require
laboratories or other special facilities
or equipment) ?
4. Time spent on supervision For Supervisors only: What proportion
of your time do you spend
supervising employees or other
supervisors (assigning tasks, giving
direction, providing feedback, etc.)?
Note: For question 1 and 2, these two items were extracted from a set of 5 questions that asks the respond-
ents to state the proportion of time they spent of certain tasks. The Telework Survey specified that the sum
of the proportion of these 5 items should be 100. Three out of five questions were not directly related to
the research purpose and were excluded. Question 3 and 4 asked the respondent to freely input the value
between 0 and 100.

fairness, teleworker supervision experience, and teleworker supervision

proficiency. For the control variables, telework importance, organiza-
tional tenure, and education were included.
Time spent on formal meetings is composed of a single item that asks
the managers for the proportion of time at work spent on having formal
face-to-face meetings or discussions with colleagues, project team mem-
bers, supervisors, etc. Time spent on informal meetings is composed of a
single item that asks the managers for the proportion of time at work
spent on informally talking or collaborating with colleagues, project team
members, supervisors, etc. Time spent on doing tasks that can be accom-
plished only at the office is an item that asks the respondents to state the
proportion of their work time at work that is spent on tasks that can be
accomplished only at the office or duty station. Time spent on supervision
is a measure that depicts the proportion of a supervisor’s time at work
spent on supervising employees or other supervisors. Supervisory activ-
ities include assigning tasks, giving feedback, and providing directions.
The proportion is measured by the percentage of time spent compared
to the total working time.
Table 2. Measures of variables for regression analysis.
Variables Questions
Management My agency’s managers and senior leaders encourage and support telework (1 ¼ strongly disagree to 5 ¼ strongly agree)
telework
support
Work Employees that telework have similar work assignments and work expectations as employees that do not telework (1 ¼ strongly disagree to 5 ¼ strongly agree)
assignment
fairness
Teleworker How much experience do you have supervising teleworkers? (0 ¼ None, 1 ¼ Less than one year, 2 ¼ 1–2 years, 3 ¼ 3–4 years, 4 ¼ 5 or more years)
supervision
experience
Teleworker Supervising teleworkers is: (1 ¼ More challenging than supervising on-site employees, 2 ¼ About the same as supervising
supervision on-site employees, 3 ¼ Easier than supervising on-site employees)
proficiency
Telework How important are each of the following factors to your decision to remain in or leave (move, resign or retire) your
importance current organization/agency?: Opportunity to telework (1 ¼ Very Unimportant, 2 ¼ Unimportant, 3 ¼ Neither
Important nor Unimportant, 4 ¼ Important, 5 ¼ Very Important)
Organization How long have you worked for your agency? (1 ¼ Less than 1 year, 2 ¼ 1–3 years, 3 ¼ 4–5 years, 4 ¼ 6–10
tenure years, 5 ¼ 11–15 years, 6 ¼ 16–20 years, 7 ¼ 21–25 years, 8 ¼ More than 25 years)
Education What is your highest level of education completed? (1 ¼ Less than a high school diploma, 2 ¼ High school,
equivalent diploma or GED, 3 ¼ Some college but no degree, 4 ¼ Associate’s degree, 5 ¼ Bachelor’s degree,
6 ¼ Graduate credits but no graduate degree, 7 ¼ Master’s degree, 8 ¼ Professional degree, 9 ¼ Doctoral degree)
Perceived Overall, how has teleworking Factor loading Factor Eigenvalue Alpha
organizational impacted your
impact of organization’s:
telework (1 ¼ very 1. Productivity and .860 4.260 .918
negative to 5 ¼ performance
very positive) 2. Ability to ensure effective .860
communication
3. Ability to support .885
effective teamwork
4. Ability to support effective .869
work relationships
5. Ability to recruit high- .779
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

quality employees
6. Ability to retain high- .798
performing employees
15
16 S. PARK AND Y. J. CHO

Table 3. Intercorrelation table of variables of nonteleworking supervisors.

Variables n M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Perceived impact of telework 592 18.98 3.80 1 　 　 　 　 　 　 　
2. Management telework support 592 3.28 1.09 .108 1 　 　 　 　 　 　
3. Work assignment fairness 592 3.50 1.07 .369 .316 1 　 　 　 　 　
4. Teleworker supervision 585 2.75 1.56 .133 .187 .149 1 　 　 　 　
experience
5. Teleworker supervision 380 1.60 0.54 .379 .020 .203 .092 1 　 　 　
proficiency
6. Telework importance 592 3.05 1.21 .350 .152 .171 .107 .216 1 　 　
7. Organization tenure 590 5.79 1.91 .038 .032 .067 .109 .039 .123 1 　
8. Education 592 6.10 1.70 .019 .112 .045 .187 .026 .158 .017 1
p < .05.

Perceived organizational impact of telework is composed of six items

that measure the perceptions of the managers regarding how telework
has impacted their organization. These items include questions about
how productivity and performance, effective communication, supporting
effective teamwork, supporting effective work relationships, recruiting
high-quality employees and retaining high-performing employees have
been affected by telework. To validate that these items can be loaded on
a single factor, a PFA was conducted. The results indicated that the six
items were loaded on a single factor (eigenvalue ¼ 4.26), with a
Cronbach’s alpha value of .918. The factor loadings ranged from .779
to .885.
Management telework support is a measure that shows the extent to
which managers perceive that their agency’s managers and senior leaders
encourage and support telework. Work assignment fairness includes an
item that asks managers about the extent to which they think teleworkers
and nonteleworkers receive similar work assignments and must meet
similar work expectations. Teleworker supervision experience is an item
that measures managers’ length of experience in supervising teleworkers.
The interval is measured by the number of years of experience.
Teleworker supervision proficiency measures the extent to which managers
perceive that supervising teleworkers is easier than supervising nontele-
workers (on-site employees).
Tables 3 and 4 provide the results of the intercorrelations among the
dependent and independent variables. As shown in Table 3, for nontele-
working supervisors, the perceived impact of telework is positively
related with managerial support, fair work assignment, teleworker super-
vision experience, and teleworker supervision proficiency. One can
observe similar results from Table 4, regarding teleworking supervisors,
although the correlation coefficients are slightly different. The results
show that the correlation coefficients among the independent and
dependent variables were not high enough to cause serious
multicollinearity.
 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 17

Table 4. Intercorrelation table of variables of teleworking supervisors.

Variables n M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Perceived impact of telework 1353 21.56 4.15 1
2. Management telework support 1351 3.69 1.08 .178 1
3. Work assignment fairness 1351 4.03 1.01 .370 .350 1
4. Teleworker supervision 1333 3.51 1.31 .081 .071 .074 1
experience
5. Teleworker supervision 1175 1.74 0.49 .345 .015 .214 .017 1
proficiency
6. Telework importance 1351 3.87 1.10 .497 .089 .296 .047 .254 1
7. Organization tenure 1352 5.56 1.86 .036 .026 .016 .220 .003 .087 1
8. Education 1349 6.30 1.66 .029 .048 .013 .087 .063 .096 .090 1
p < .05.

Table 5. Results of t-test for mean difference between nonteleworkers and teleworkers.
Variable Telework status N Mean SD t p Mean difference
Time spent on formal Nonteleworker 577 21.09 13.02 .26 .794 .169
face-to-face meeting Teleworker 1334 21.26 12.95
or discussion
Time spent on informal Nonteleworker 574 16.68 9.23 1.43 .153 .640
talking and Teleworker 1333 16.04 8.85
collaborating
Time spent on tasks Nonteleworker 592 46.76 28.57 9.60 .000 12.455
only doable at office Teleworker 1352 34.30 25.29
Time spent on Nonteleworker 531 38.94 24.07 1.46 .144 1.849
supervision Teleworker 1262 37.09 24.63
p < .001.

Results
The result of the empirical analysis is explained in two steps. First, the
result of the t-test, presented in Table 5, is as follows. The current study
hypothesized that teleworking supervisors spend less time on formal
meetings, informal meetings, working on tasks that can be accomplished
only at the office, and supervision than nonteleworking supervisors. As
anticipated by the current study, nonteleworking supervisors and tele-
working supervisors showed statistically significant (p < .001) differences
in the means of time spent on tasks that can be accomplished only at
the office. On average, nonteleworking supervisors spent 46.8% of their
work time on tasks that can be accomplished only at the office, while tel-
eworking supervisors spent 34.3% of their time on such tasks. The results
indicate that teleworking supervisors tend to spend less time than nonte-
leworking supervisors at the office completing tasks that can be accom-
plished only at the office. Contrary to the expectations of the current
study, the results show that the mean differences between teleworkers
and nonteleworkers with regard to time spent on formal meetings, infor-
mal meetings, and supervision were not statistically significant. Such
results imply that there is no meaningful difference in the proportion of
time spent on formal and informal meetings and supervising
18 S. PARK AND Y. J. CHO

Table 6. Cross-sectional regression estimates of perceived organizational impact

of telework.
Nonteleworking supervisors Teleworking supervisors
Variables Coefficient t p Beta Coefficient t p Beta
Management telework support .050 .29 .772 .013 .282 2.97 .003 .075
Work assignment fairness .826 4.83 .000 .224 .745 6.85 .000 .181
Teleworker supervision experience .225 1.42 .157 .062 .476 4.75 .000 .116
Teleworker supervision proficiency 1.938 5.79 .000 .261 1.741 8.49 .000 .211
Telework importance 1.097 7.10 .000 .329 1.415 14.97 .000 .382
Organization tenure .094 1.06 .288 .046 .065 1.19 .236 .029
Education .038 .34 .734 .015 .031 .51 .610 .012
Constant 8.168 6.11 .000 – 7.360 8.83 .000 –
R-squared .317 .350
Adjusted R-squared .304 .346
F statistic 24.51 89.18
n 378 1166
p < .01, p < .001.

subordinates and other supervisors between teleworking and nontele-

working supervisors. Therefore, hypothesis 1 was partially supported.
The results of the regression analysis are presented in Table 6. The
results for nonteleworking supervisors suggest that hypotheses 3 and 5
were supported, while hypotheses 2 and 4 were not supported. First,
work assignment fairness showed a positive relationship with the per-
ceived organizational impact of telework (b ¼ .826, p < .001, beta¼.224),
implying that the more that nonteleworking supervisors thought the
work assignments were similar between teleworkers and nonteleworkers,
the more positive their perceptions of the impact of telework were.
Second, teleworker supervision proficiency and the perceived organiza-
tional impact of telework showed a positive and significant relationship
(b ¼ 1.938, p < .001, beta ¼ .261). The higher the level of nontelework-
ing supervisor supervision proficiency was, the more positively supervi-
sors perceived the organizational impact of telework. Third, telework
importance also showed a significant effect on the perceived impact of
telework, which had the largest impact from the beta coefficient
(b ¼ 1.097, p < .001, beta ¼ .329). Even for nonteleworking supervisors,
the potential opportunity to telework may substantially affect the per-
ceived impact of telework.
The results for teleworking supervisors revealed that all related
hypotheses were supported. First, management support for telework
showed a positive association (b ¼ .282, p < .010, beta ¼ .075) with the
perceived organizational impact of telework. Teleworking supervisors
who believed that managers and senior leaders of their organization sup-
ported telework demonstrated a higher level of perceived organizational
impact of telework. Second, work assignment fairness positively affected
(b ¼ .745, p < .001, beta ¼ .181) the perceived organizational impact of
telework. This result means that the more that teleworking supervisors
 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 19

perceives work assignments as fairly distributed between teleworkers and

nonteleworkers, the more positive teleworking supervisors were about
the perceived organizational impact of telework. Third, there was a posi-
tive relationship between teleworker supervision experience and the per-
ceived organizational impact of telework (b ¼ .476, p < .001, beta ¼
.116). Teleworking supervisors who were more experienced in supervis-
ing teleworkers tended to hold more positive views of the organizational
impact of telework. Third, the relationship between teleworker supervi-
sion proficiency and the perceived organizational impact of telework was
positive (b ¼ 1.741, p < .001, beta ¼ .211). Teleworking supervisors with
higher levels of teleworker supervision proficiency demonstrate more
positive perceptions regarding the organizational impact of telework.
Finally, as in the previous analysis, telework importance exerted a signifi-
cant effect on the perceived impact, with the largest beta coefficient
(b ¼ 1.415, p < .001, beta ¼ .382). When teleworking is an important
part of working life, teleworking supervisors are more likely to perceive
the impact of telework positively.
A comparison of the results of the MRA on nonteleworking and on
teleworking supervisors is as follows. First, hypotheses 3 and 5 were both
supported in the regression analysis of nonteleworking and teleworking
supervisors. Second, hypotheses 2 and 4 were supported only in the case
of teleworking supervisors. This result implies that, for nonteleworking
supervisors, their perception of the management support for telework
and their years of experience in supervising teleworkers did not influence
their perception regarding the positive impacts of telework on their
organization. For the control variables, only telework importance, that is,
the intent to stay based on telework opportunity, was found to have a
significant relationship with the perceived organizational impact of tele-
work for both nonteleworkers and teleworkers.

Discussion
The current study tested whether teleworking supervisors spend less time
on various tasks than nonteleworking supervisors and examined the
effects of a number of factors on the perceived organizational impact of
telework. The results offer several implications for research and practice.
First, teleworking supervisors tend to spend less time on work that can
be accomplished only at the office than nonteleworking supervisors. This
result is consistent with the arguments of past studies that teleworking
employees tend to be less present at the office than nonteleworkers. To
facilitate smooth transition to telework, the portion of such tasks that
can be performed only at the office can be reduced. Unexpectedly, time
20 S. PARK AND Y. J. CHO

proportions for formal and informal communication as well as supervi-

sion were not statistically different between teleworking and nontele-
working supervisors. One reason might be because of the ICT
communication methods used, such as cell phones, e-mails, text-mes-
sages and other wireless network-based technologies. By using diverse
ICT tools, teleworking supervisors may communicate with and supervise
their subordinates. Although the effectiveness of such communication
might be inferior to face-to-face communication because media such as
emails and text messages are less rich, the proportion of time spent on
communication and supervision activities may not demonstrate meaning-
ful differences. Related to this result, future research should investigate
how the subordinates of teleworking supervisors perceive the quality of
the supervision they receive to assess whether teleworking supervisors
provide the same quality of supervision as nonteleworking supervisors.
Practically, improving the medium richness based on the development of
supervising tools via ICT can be the next step.
Second, in the case of teleworking supervisors, management support
for telework, work assignment fairness, teleworker supervision experi-
ence, and teleworker supervision proficiency all positively affected the
perceived organizational impact of telework. These results indicate that,
in general, teleworking supervisors who have positive perceptions regard-
ing their teleworker supervision experience tend to believe that telework
positively affects their organization. Based on these results, practitioners
need to encourage management to support telework, distribute tasks
fairly among nonteleworkers and teleworkers, and train supervisors so
that they can obtain indirect experience with directing teleworkers,
thereby allowing them to feel comfortable in supervising their telework-
ing subordinates. Regarding such training, discovering best practices of
telework supervision and utilizing them in training sessions might be
helpful. Agencies may wish to create a manual with specific cases by
conferring with supervisors who have obtained superb evaluations from
teleworking subordinates. However, within the scope of the current
study, it is not clear whether the teleworking supervisors’ own telework-
ing experience affects how they supervise teleworkers. Thus, the impact
of supervisors’ own telework experience on their experience as a super-
visor of teleworkers warrants more research.
Third, for nonteleworking supervisors, work assignment fairness and
teleworker supervision proficiency affected their perception of the organ-
izational impact of telework, while management support for telework
and teleworker supervision experience showed no effect. It is possible
that, compared to teleworking supervisors, nonteleworking supervisors,
as they are not participating in telework, would not be as aware of
 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 21

managerial support for telework. Moreover, although the perceived profi-

ciency in teleworker supervision showed minor differences in means (tel-
eworking supervisor ¼ 1.7, nonteleworking supervisor ¼ 1.6),
nonteleworking supervisors did not seem to think that the length of
experience in supervising teleworkers positively affected their organiza-
tion. The reason for this result may be that, in the case that they were
denied the opportunity to telework but were obligated to supervise tele-
workers, the nonteleworking supervisors may be experiencing the discon-
tent that occurs for employees who cannot telework and that
undermines the positive organizational impacts of telework. Some evi-
dence of this result can be found in the nonteleworking supervisors’
lower level of the perceived organizational impact of telework compared
to that of teleworking supervisors. Consequently, future studies are
advised to investigate whether the telework status of supervisors affects
the performance of the supervisors themselves and the performance of
the teleworkers whom those managers supervise.
The current study poses several limitations. First, this study used a
U.S. federal government dataset. Although the federal government data-
set was the only large dataset available for the purpose of the current
study, the constructs of variables based on the survey questions may
need more vigorous theoretical development. Second, the data of the cur-
rent study are cross-sectional, meaning that they do not account for
effects over time. Future studies may conduct longitudinal investigations
or experimental studies to investigate the perceptions and telework
experience of supervisors over time. Related to this, the current analysis
is not free from the CSB in that both independent and dependent varia-
bles come from the same survey data. However, Harman’s single factor
test showed that the bias is not sufficiently serious to invalidate the
results. Third, because the data was collected in 2011, the current situ-
ation may be somewhat different than when the data was collected. The
development of ICT and the increased popularity of telework might have
brought about certain changes in managerial practices. Nevertheless, the
current analysis demonstrates certain challenges for teleworking supervi-
sors, and the implications apply to the management of teleworkers and
teleworking supervisors. Finally, the scope of the findings of the current
study is limited to the U.S. federal government teleworking environment.
Therefore, for generalization to a broader population, the results need to
be replicated in other countries and organizations.

Compliance with ethical standards

The current study met all ethical standards mandated by the institution of the author.
The study does not include any human participants performing experiments.
22 S. PARK AND Y. J. CHO

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
The present research has been conducted by the Research Grant of KwangWoon
University in 2019.

ORCID
Seejeen Park http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2436-2562

References
Allen, T. D., Golden, T. D., & Shockley, K. M. (2015). How effective is telecommuting?
Assessing the status of our scientific findings. Psychological Science in the Public
Interest, 16(2), 40–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100615593273
Bailey, D. E., & Kurland, N. B. (2002). A review of telework research: Findings, new
directions, and lessons for the study of modern work. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 23(4), 383–400. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.144
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the
art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1108/
02683940710733115
Bayo-Moriones, A., Bill
on, M., & Lera-L
opez, F. (2013). Perceived performance effects of
ICT in manufacturing SMEs. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 113(1),
117–135. https://doi.org/10.1108/02635571311289700
B
elanger, F., Watson-Manheim, M. B., & Swan, B. R. (2013). A multi-level socio-tech-
nical systems telecommuting framework. Behaviour & Information Technology, 32(12),
1257–1279. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2012.705894
Bentley, T. A., Teo, S. T. T., McLeod, L., Tan, F., Bosua, R., & Gloet, M. (2016). The
role of organisational support in teleworker wellbeing: A socio-technical systems
approach. Applied Ergonomics, 52, 207–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2015.07.
019
Burbach, M. E., & Day, F. C. (2012). Does organization sector matter in leading tele-
worker teams? A comparative case study. International Journal of Business
Information and Technology, 1(1), 29–42.
Caillier, J. G. (2012). The impact of teleworking on work motivation in a U.S. federal
government agency. The American Review of Public Administration, 42(4), 461–480.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074011409394
Caillier, J. G. (2013). Are teleworkers less likely to report leave intentions in the United
States federal government than non-teleworkers are?. The American Review of Public
Administration, 43(1), 72–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074011425084
Cascio, W. F. (2000). Managing a virtual workplace. Academy of Management
Perspectives, 14(3), 81–90. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2000.4468068
Choi, S. (2018). Managing flexible work arrangements in government: Testing the effects
of institutional and managerial support. Public Personnel Management, 47(1), 26–50.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026017738540
 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 23

Collins, A. M., Hislop, D., & Cartwright, S. (2016). Social support in the workplace
between teleworkers, office-based colleagues and supervisors. New Technology, Work
and Employment, 31(2), 161–175. https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12065
Conway, J. M., & Lance, C. E. (2010). What reviewers should expect from authors
regarding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 25(3), 325–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9181-6
Cook, J., DeMarco, J., Doherty, W., & Jones, Y. (2013). OPM’s 2012 telework report
shows vast opportunities for improvement. Public Manager, 42(4), 13.
Dahlstrom, T. R. (2013). Telecommuting and leadership style. Public Personnel
Management, 42(3), 438–451. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026013495731
Dambrin, C. (2004). How does telework influence the manager-employee relationship?
International Journal of Human Resources Development and Management, 4(4),
358–374. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJHRDM.2004.005044
de Vries, H., Tummers, L., & Bekkers, V. (2019). The benefits of teleworking in the pub-
lic sector: Reality or rhetoric? Review of Public Personnel Administration, 39(4),
570–593. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X18760124
Denison, M. B., Banks, D., Bosley, E., Hyduke, B., James, K., Lefkowitz, E., & Rogers, D.
(2014). Effective engagement strategies for an increasingly dispersed workforce. Public
Manager, 43(3), 62–65.
Dimitrova, D. (2003). Controlling teleworkers: Supervision and flexibility revisited. New
Technology, Work and Employment, 18(3), 181–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-
005X.00120
Eversole, B. A. W., Venneberg, D. L., & Crowder, C. L. (2012). Creating a flexible organ-
izational culture to attract and retain talented workers across generations. Advances in
Developing Human Resources, 14(4), 607–625. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1523422312455612
Fogarty, H., Scott, P., & Williams, S. (2011). The half-empty office: Dilemmas in manag-
ing locational flexibility. New Technology, Work and Employment, 26(3), 183–195.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-005X.2011.00268.x
Gajendran, R. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2007). The good, the bad, and the unknown about
telecommuting: Meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequen-
ces. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1524–1541. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-
9010.92.6.1524
George, B., & Pandey, S. K. (2017). We know the Yin-But where is the Yang? Toward a
balanced approach on common source bias in public administration scholarship.
Review of Public Personnel Administration, 37(2), 245–270. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0734371x17698189
Golden, T. D., & Fromen, A. (2011). Does it matter where your manager works?
Comparing managerial work mode (traditional, telework, virtual) across subordinate
work experiences and outcomes. Human Relations, 64(11), 1451–1475. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0018726711418387
Golden, T. D., & Veiga, J. F. (2005). The impact of extent of telecommuting on job sat-
isfaction: Resolving inconsistent findings. Journal of Management, 31(2), 301–318.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206304271768
Golden, T. D., Veiga, J. F., & Dino, R. N. (2008). The impact of professional isolation
on teleworker job performance and turnover intentions: Does time spent teleworking,
interacting face-to-face, or having access to communication-enhancing technology
matter? The Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1412–1421. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0012722
24 S. PARK AND Y. J. CHO

Greer, T. W., & Payne, S. C. (2014). Overcoming telework challenges: Outcomes of suc-
cessful telework strategies. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 17(2), 87–111. https://
doi.org/10.1037/mgr0000014
Hiltrop, J. M. (2000). Preparing people and organizations for teleworking. In K. Daniels,
D. Lamond, & P. Standen (Eds.), Managing telework: Perspectives from human
resource management and work psychology (pp. 157–173). Thomas Learning Publisher.
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., & Locke, E. A. (2000). Personality and job satisfaction: The
mediating role of job characteristics. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(2),
237–249. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.2.237
Julien, M., Somerville, K., & Culp, N. (2011). Going beyond the work arrangement: The
crucial role of supervisor support. Public Administration Quarterly, 35(2), 167–204.
Kaczmarczyk, S. (2008). Telework: Breaking new ground. Public Manager, 37(1), 63–67.
Kaplan, S., Engelsted, L., Lei, X., & Lockwood, K. (2018). Unpackaging manager mistrust
in allowing telework: Comparing and integrating theoretical perspectives. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 33(3), 365–382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-017-9498-5
Ketokivi, M. A., & Schroeder, R. G. (2004). Perceptual measures of performance: Fact or
fiction? Journal of Operations Management, 22(3), 247–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jom.2002.07.001
Kowalski, K. B., & Swanson, J. (2005). Critical success factors in developing teleworking
programs. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 12(3), 236–249. https://doi.org/10.
1108/14635770510600357
Kurkland, N. B., & Bailey, D. E. (1999). The advantages and challenges of working here,
there anywhere, and anytime. Organizational Dynamics, 28(2), 53–68. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0090-2616(00)80016-9
Lamond, D. (2000). Managerial style and telework. In K. Daniels, D. Lamond, & P.
Standen (Eds.), Managing telework: Perspectives from human resource management
and work psychology (pp. 93–111). Thomas Learning Publisher.
Lautsch, B. A., & Kossek, E. E. (2011). Managing a blended workforce: Telecommuters
and non-telecommuters. Organizational Dynamics, 40(1), 10–17. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.orgdyn.2010.10.005
Lautsch, B. A., Kossek, E. E., & Eaton, S. C. (2009). Supervisory approaches and para-
doxes in managing telecommuting implementation. Human Relations, 62(6), 795–827.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726709104543
Lee, S.-Y., & Hong, J. H. (2011). Does family-friendly policy matter? Testing its impact
on turnover and performance. Public Administration Review, 71(6), 870–879. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02416.x
Mahler, J. (2012). The telework divide: Managerial and personnel challenges of telework.
Review of Public Personnel Administration, 32(4), 407–418. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0734371X12458127
Major, D. A., Verive, J. M., & Joice, W. (2008). Telework as a dependent care solution:
Examining current practice to improve telework management strategies. The
Psychologist-Manager Journal, 11(1), 65–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10887150801967134
Martin, B., & MacDonnell, R. (2012). Is telework effective for organizations? A meta analysis
of empirical research on perceptions of telework and organizational outcomes.
Management Research Review, 35(7), 602–616. https://doi.org/10.1108/01409171211238820
Maruyama, T., & Tietze, S. (2012). From anxiety to assurance: Concerns and out-
comes of telework. Personnel Review, 41(4), 450–469. https://doi.org/10.1108/
00483481211229375
 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 25

Mello, J. A. (2007). Managing telework programs effectively. Employee Responsibilities

and Rights Journal, 19(4), 247–261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-007-9051-1
Morganson, V. J., Major, D. A., Oborn, K. L., Verive, J. M., & Heelan, M. P. (2010).
Comparing telework locations and traditional work arrangements: Differences in
work-life balance support, job satisfaction, and inclusion. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 25(6), 578–595. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683941011056941
Newman, M., & Mathews, K. (1999). Federal family-friendly workplace policies: Barriers
to effective implementation. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 19(3), 34–48.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X9901900303
O’Keeffe, S. W. (2008). Shifting federal telework into drive. Public Manager, 37(1),
47–49.
O’Neill, T. A., Hambley, L. A., & Bercovich, A. (2014). Prediction of cyberslacking when
employees are working away from the office. Computers in Human Behavior, 34,
291–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.015
Overmyer, S. P. (2011). Implementing telework: Lessons learned from four federal agen-
cies. IBM Center for the Business of Government.
Park, S. (2014). Motivation of public managers as raters in performance appraisal:
Developing a model of rater motivation. Public Personnel Management, 43(4),
387–414. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026014530675
P
erez, M. P., S
anchez, A. M., Carnicer, P. L., & Jim
enez, M. J. V. (2004). A technology
acceptance model of innovation adoption: The case of teleworking. European Journal
of Innovation Management, 7(4), 280–291. https://doi.org/10.1108/14601060410565038
Putnam, L. L., Myers, K. K., & Gailliard, B. M. (2014). Examining the tensions in work-
place flexibility and exploring options for new directions. Human Relations, 67(4),
413–440. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726713495704
Py€ori€a, P. (2011). Managing telework: Risks, fears and rules. Management Research
Review, 34(4), 386–399. https://doi.org/10.1108/01409171111117843
Rasmussen, E., & Corbett, G. (2008). Why isn’t teleworking working?. New Zealand
Journal of Employment Relations, 33(2), 20–32.
San-Jose, L., Iturralde, T., & Maseda, A. (2009). The influence of information communi-
cations technology (ICT) on cash management and financial department performance:
An explanatory model. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences / Revue
Canadienne des Sciences de l’administration, 26(2), 150–169. https://doi.org/10.1002/
cjas.97
Sewell, G., & Taskin, L. (2015). Out of sight, out of mind in a new world of work?
Autonomy, control, and spatiotemporal scaling in telework. Organization Studies,
36(11), 1507–1529. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840615593587
Shockley, K., Thompson, C., & Andreassi, J. (2013). Workplace culture and work-life
integration. In D. Major, & R. Burke (Eds.), Handbook of work–life integration of pro-
fessionals: Challenges and opportunities (pp. 310–333). Edward Elgar.
Snyder, K. (2012). Enhancing telework: A guide to virtual leadership. Public Manager,
41(1), 11–14.
Tallon, P. P., Kraemer, K. L., & Gurbaxani, V. (2000). Executives’ perceptions of the
business value of information technology: A process-oriented approach. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 16(4), 145–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.
2000.11518269
Taskin, L., & Devos, V. (2005). Paradoxes from the individualization of human resource
management: The case of telework. Journal of Business Ethics, 62(1), 13–24. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10551-005-8710-0
26 S. PARK AND Y. J. CHO

Trist, E. L. (1981). The evolution of socio-technical systems: A conceptual framework and

an action research program. Ontario Ministry of Labour, Ontario Quality of Working
Life Centre.
US Office of Personnel Management. (2013). Independent agency. Createspace
Independent Pub.
Wajcman, J., Rose, E., Brown, J. E., & Bittman, M. (2010). Enacting virtual connections
between work and home. Journal of Sociology, 46(3), 257–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1440783310365583
Walker, G. H., Stanton, N. A., Salmon, P. M., & Jenkins, D. P. (2008). A review of soci-
otechnical systems theory: A classic concept for new command and control para-
digms. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 9(6), 479–499. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14639220701635470
Weisberg, A., & Porell, M. (2011). Moving telework from compliance to competitiveness.
Public Manager, 40(1), 12–14.