Manager Control and Employee Isolation in Telecommuting Environments

Journal of High Technology
Management Research 13 (2002) 107 – 126
Manager control and employee isolation in

telecommuting environments
Nancy B. Kurlanda, Cecily D. Cooperb,*
a
Kurland and Associates, Pacific Palisades, USA
b
Department of Management and Organization, Marshall School of Business,
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0808, USA
Accepted 15 October 2001
Abstract
This study examines the challenges related to telecommuting, focusing on how managerial
monitoring strategies (behavior, output, clan) link to telecommuters’ professional isolation concerns.
The study relies on interviews with supervisors, telecommuters, and nontelecommuters. Findings
suggest that the primary challenges facing supervisors who manage in telecommuting environments
involve clan strategies: fostering synergy, replicating informal learning, creating opportunities for
interpersonal networking, and professionally developing out-of-sight employees. These challenges
affect telecommuters’ professional development opportunities, which in turn heighten their perceived
professional isolation. D 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Telecommuting; Employee professional development; Qualitative; Mentoring; Informal learning
1. Introduction
Telecommunications and computer technology make working at home possible for

countless Americans. Estimates show that currently, 16.5 million regularly employed
Americans telework at least one day per month of their normal work schedule (International
Telework Association, 2000). Also known as teleworking, telecommuting involves working
outside the conventional workplace, for example, at home, and communicating with it by way
of computer-based technology (Nilles, 1994).
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-213-740-0734.

E-mail addresses: nkurland@pepperdine.edu (N.B. Kurland), cecilyc@marshall.usc.edu (C.D. Cooper).
1047-8310/02/$ – see front matter D 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
PII: S 1 0 4 7 - 8 3 1 0 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 5 1 - 7
108 N.B. Kurland, C.D. Cooper / Journal of High Technology Management Research 13 (2002) 107–126
Numerous articles heralding the arrival of telecommuting appear regularly in the popular
press. This widespread conversation has begun to spur academic research on the subject.
Findings show that employees choose telecommuting to decrease work-related stress, to
reduce lengthy commutes, to balance work and family responsibilities, to work longer hours
but in more comfortable environments, and to provide uninterrupted time to focus on their
work (see Kurland & Bailey, 1999). Organizations adopt telecommuting, not only to save real
estate costs and to accord with legislation such as the Americans with Disabilities Act and the
Clean Air Act, but also as an attempt to improve employee morale and productivity (see
Kurland & Bailey, 1999).
Despite the potential advantages of telecommuting, telecommuting raises two important
challenges: supervisors’ resistance to manage employees they cannot physically observe
(managerial control), and employees’ concerns about professional and social isolation (e.g.,
Shamir & Salomon, 1985; Tomaskovic-Devey & Risman, 1993). Little research has explored
the nature of these concerns. Studies which have addressed these issues are largely survey
studies (e.g., Mokhtarian, Bagley, & Salomon, 1998; Tomaskovic-Devey & Risman, 1993).
One exception is the study by Baruch and Nicholson (1997). They gathered interview data
from 62 telecommuters representing five different companies. However, they only noted that
isolation and managerial reluctance were factors that could hinder telecommuting. Even these
authors fell short in trying to understand the nature of these challenges and how they manifest
themselves in telecommuting environments. Additionally, with few exceptions, existing
research has focused predominately on telecommuters, ignoring managers’ and nontelecom-
muters’ perspectives — both of which may provide a more complete understanding of how
telecommuting, as an alternative work form, will challenge managerial control and contribute
to employee isolation in the 21st century workplace.
Given the current state of research on telecommuting, scholars must garner a deeper
understanding of the constructs they are studying before we can advance theoretical and
practical knowledge in this area through positivist methods. The purpose of the present study
is to better understand the nature of and the process by which telecommuting evokes
managerial control and employee isolation challenges using a grounded theory approach
(Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). In the following pages, we (1) explicate
the issues of control and isolation and (2) explore relationships between manager control and
employee isolation using interviews with telecommuters, nontelecommuters, and supervisors.
Such research is critical to academics to ensure that organization theory remains relevant as
new organizational forms emerge, and to practitioners to help forestall challenges to
designing effective telecommuting programs.
2. Defining control and isolation
2.1. Manager control
Research has shown that managers fear they lose control over employees’ behavior
as employees gain autonomy by telecommuting (Tomaskovic-Devey & Risman, 1993).
N.B. Kurland, C.D. Cooper / Journal of High Technology Management Research 13 (2002) 107–126 109
Telecommuting can diminish a manager’s perceived control as it physically removes

the employee from the conventional work environment. For example, Bailyn (1988,
p. 151) observed that telecommuting changes the way work has been traditionally
organized, ‘‘represent[ing] a delegation of authority from management to the working
or productive level.’’ Since managers believe they cannot monitor telecommuters’
behavior, they disapprove of telecommuting and resist its adoption (see e.g., Mokh-
tarian & Salomon, 1996a, 1996b). They question: If I can’t see my employees, how
do I know they’re working?
One way to assess the degree to which managers monitor telecommuters’ behavior is to
examine managers’ use of human resource management (micro) control strategies (Snell,
1992). Control strategies help align employees’ actions with firms’ interests (Snell, 1992,
p. 293; Tannenbaum, 1968). Prior research has identified three categories of control that tend
to overlap in practice: behavior, output, and clan (Eisenhardt, 1985; Mintzberg, 1979; Ouchi,
1979; Ouchi & Maguire, 1975; Rowe & Wright, 1997; Snell, 1992). Table 1 provides a
summary of these strategies.
Behavior control specifies how something is to be accomplished and embodies
centralization, articulated procedures, close supervision, and behavioral appraisal
(Eisenhardt, 1985; Ouchi, 1979; Rowe & Wright, 1997; Snell, 1992). It is most
appropriate when a clear cause–effect exists between activities and output, and when
results are hard to measure. Behavior control is typically initiated top-down; superiors
closely monitor and evaluate subordinate’s actions over time. For example, managers
may have frequent meetings to discuss performance. They may provide subjective
evaluations and use feedback as a remedial tool to correct deviations when they occur
(Snell, 1992, p. 294). And employees may be held accountable for their actions
regardless of results.
When it is difficult to standardize actions a priori, or when means–end relationships are
not well understood, behavior control is not effective because appropriate work behavior is
unknown (Snell, 1992). In these cases, supervisors can use output control strategies. Output
control specifies what is to be accomplished; it enables decentralization and encompasses
results criteria and performance–reward links (Eisenhardt, 1985; Ouchi, 1979; Snell, 1992).
Output control requires agreed-upon, measurable goals (Ouchi & Maguire, 1975), and is an
important source of information to communicate performance to others in larger organiza-
tions (Ouchi & Maguire, 1975).
Clan control embraces selective staffing, training, development, and extensive social-
ization, creating shared values and beliefs (Ouchi, 1979, 1980). Formal clan-like
strategies, such as selection and training, can prevent performance problems, although
they can only manage potential (Snell, 1992). Formal and informal clan controls require
high levels of commitment from each individual to adhere to socially prescribed
behaviors. They rely on common agreement, shared beliefs, and values transmitted by
rituals, stories, and ceremonies.
In short, behavior control regulates the transformation process, output control regulates
results, and clan control regulates knowledge, skills, abilities, and values (Snell, 1992,
p. 292).
Table 1
Behavior, output, and clan control strategies
Control
strategy When used Examples Benefits Interview data excerpts
Behavior
control
Clear cause – effect
exists between
Standard operating
procedures
Ongoing feedback to correct
deviations as they occur.
Job requirements are clear.
activities and output
Results
measure
are hard to Job formalization Control is a task design problem. We have meetings once a month in the
branch office.
Meetings Centralizes power in immediate
hierarchy (e.g., direct supervisor)
We have weekly Wednesday morning
audio meetings.
Other scheduled
interaction
My supervisor will call me certain times
during the day. And if we’re not working,
it’s obvious.
Close supervision
Output
control
Clear cause – effect
does not exist between
Specified result Distributes power throughout
organization.
Icommission.
get rewarded for making sales—base plus
activities and output

Results
measured
are easily Performance
links
– reward Tool to communicate employee
performance throughout large
Evaluated by my supervisor’s observation of
my results.
organizations.
Preestablished
targets linked to
Tangible evidence of results We have an annual quota.
performance
evaluation
Provides employees discretion over Any given month I provide some statistics,
means to achieve organizationally errors, etc. and I’m evaluated in part on that
determined ends. information.
Clan
control
Acculturate
employees
new Company rituals Creates shared values We do team building; once in a while our
whole team will go and play golf or
something like that.
Prevent
problems
performance Training Prevents performance problems The company takes a ‘‘sink or swim’’ attitude
(re: the lack of telecommuting training).
Manage
potential
employee Selection/Hiring
criteria
We required that people talk about the
potential issues with their bosses as part of
the application process to telecommute.
2.2. Managerial control and telecommuting
All three strategies can potentially provide managers with options to control telecom-
muters’ behavior. For example, to control telecommuters’ behavior, managers have used
strategies that are behavioral in nature and include formalizing job requirements and
communication. In two separate studies, Olson (1982) and Zuboff (1982, p. 147) found that
performance evaluation, when monitored remotely, became increasingly formalized through
greater institutionalization of rules.
When telecommuters are physically out of sight, some organizations have resorted to
output controls (e.g., Hamblin, 1995; Turban & Wang, 1995). For example, Olson (1982,
p. 83) found that monitoring of telecommuters’ performance tended to be ‘‘based on results,
the quality and timeliness of completed work, rather than observation’’ for more effective
supervision. Telecommuters can report results (outputs) by way of written documentation,
monthly accounting by fax or email, or frequent communication (written, phone, periodic
face-to-face meetings) (Campagna, 1996).
Finally, telecommuting proponents in the popular press urge companies to train — a form
of clan control — prospective telecommuters (e.g., Piskurich, 1996). To our knowledge,
however, no research has explicitly examined clan controls in telecommuting. In the present
study, we use a grounded theory approach to collect qualitative data to explore in detail the
strategies managers use to control telecommuters’ behavior.
Proposition 1: Supervisors will use a variety of behavior, output, and clan controls to
manage telecommuters.
Such inquiry will inform practitioners and researchers alike about the degree to which
managers can and do monitor off-site and non-colocated employees, and thus, assess how
well-founded are managers’ concerns that they lose control when employees telecommute.
2.3. Employee professional isolation
Where managers fear a loss of control when employees telecommute, employees worry
about being isolated (e.g., Mokhtarian et al., 1998; Salomon & Salomon, 1984). Two types
of isolation are relevant: professional and social. Professionally, employees fear that when
they’re out of sight, they’re out of mind for promotions and other organizational rewards.
Socially, employees comment that they miss the informal interaction they garner by being
around colleagues and friends. The degree to which telecommuters experience social
isolation may depend largely on whether they work at home, where feelings of social
isolation may be strong, or at a satellite office or neighborhood work center, where
social isolation is less likely. By comparison, telecommuters may experience professional
isolation in any kind of telecommuting situation in which they are physically separated from
the traditional workplace. The present study examined a mix of telecommuting situations
and focused only on professional isolation concerns, leaving analysis of social isolation for
future research.
Telecommuting research has exposed employees’ professional isolation concerns. For

example, providing a rare look at managers, Christenson (1988) concluded that managers
were less likely to consider telecommuters for promotions than nontelecommuters, indicating
that managers may professionally isolate telecommuters. Elsewhere, Bailyn (1988), in her
case study of Rank Xerox’s telecommuting program, observed that telecommuters were more
concerned than nontelecommuters about being isolated, and focused more on intrinsic than
extrinsic (e.g., status, pay, promotion) returns of work. By comparison, Kurland and Egan
(1999) found that telecommuters perceived as just the processes by which their outcomes
were determined (procedural justice) and that their supervisors treated them fairly and with
respect (interactional justice); however, telecommuting was not related, positively or
negatively, to employees’ perceptions that they received the outcomes they believed they
deserved (distributive justice).
In short, these findings suggest that some managers do perceive they professionally isolate
telecommuters; telecommuters experience isolation but may view it as a tradeoff between
intrinsic and extrinsic factors of their work, and still other telecommuters believe they are
treated fairly and perceive no impact, negatively or positively, on their work-related rewards.
Below we rely on interviews with telecommuters, nontelecommuters, and supervisors to
explore in greater detail managerial control and employee isolation concerns and possible
links between them.
Proposition 2: Managers and telecommuters perceive that telecommuters are

professionally isolated.
Proposition 3: Managerial control issues and telecommuters’ professional isolation
concerns may be linked.
3. Method
This study was designed to examine managers’ strategies for controlling telecommuters’
organizational behavior and the nature and causes of telecommuters’ perceived professional
isolation. We used Glaser and Strauss’ (1967) grounded theory approach (see also Cres-
well,1998; Eisenhardt,1989; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). A grounded theory is a theory that is
‘‘inductively derived from the study of the phenomenon it represents’’ by using qualitative
research methods in which ‘‘data collection, analysis, and theory stand in reciprocal
relationship with each other’’ (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 23). It is most appropriate when
researchers want to allow a deep understanding of a phenomenon to emerge from the data.
Hence, through semistructured interviews, we attempted to determine (1) issues relevant to
telecommuting, (2) the nature of these issues, and (3) how (or if) these issues are interrelated.
Our research contributes to the literature by examining in detail the viability of two oft-touted
concerns of telecommuting.
The study relied on informants from two high-technology firms described below. These
two organizations were chosen for the present study because they represented companies that
had active telecommuting programs and a strong interest in making telecommuting work in
their organizations. As such, they provided an opportunity to investigate challenges to
telecommuting that existed even within friendly environments. Information gathering
proceeded in three phases: informal conversations with the companies’ telecommuting
directors, site visits, and 54 recorded interviews with managers and employees.
3.1. The context: telecommuting in two high-technology firms
IntelliDat (a pseudonym) was the largest subsidiary of a US$36-billion computer,

communications, and microelectronics firm with more than 160,000 employees worldwide.
This subsidiary analyzed, designed, implemented, and managed intelligently integrated voice,
data, and video network solutions that helped customers optimize communications with their
customers, employees, and suppliers. During the course of the study, this company was
actively developing services and products targeted at the home telecommuter, hoping to take
advantage of the growing number of home-based workers.
CompuDat (a pseudonym) designed, manufactured, and serviced electronic products and
systems for measurement, computing, and communication used by people in industry,
business, engineering, science, medicine, and education. It had long been heralded for its
family friendly policies and commitment to achieving a healthy work–family balance —
values instilled by its founders. The company had over 100,000 employees worldwide and
US$38 billion in revenues.
3.2. Human resource staff and participant contacts
Members of the human resource staff facilitated our introduction into their respective
organizations. The staff at IntelliDat attempted to match a list of telecommuters with
nontelecommuters in the same job positions who reported to the same supervisor. They
scheduled face-to-face site visits for the first author with these employees — most of whom
were located throughout Southern California. During the site visit at the company’s main plant,
the first author met with members of the human resource staff, including the vice president of
Human Resources, who had helped implement the company’s telecommuting program.
Additionally, the first author interviewed 8 supervisors, 11 telecommuters, and 4 non-
telecommuters at four locations: the main plant and three regional locations. The larger
regional location was within 30 miles of the main plant. The smaller regional office housed
only four employees and was 80 miles from the main office. The third regional location was a
supervisor’s home. Because of scheduling difficulties, the first author interviewed one
supervisor and two telecommuters by phone. Additionally, in four cases, a nontelecommuter
either did not report to the supervisor or was not available to be interviewed. In one group,
only a nontelecommuter participated. However, in this group, both the supervisor and
nontelecommuter were located in the smaller regional office, and the nontelecommuter had
formerly telecommuted. This nontelecommuter answered questions related to his experience
both as a former telecommuter and as a nontelecommuter. We completed a total of 23
interviews from this firm.
At CompuDat, we initially contacted the telecommuting director while visiting the

primary site on a related project. During our contact with the telecommuting director, she
was planning to change positions and was not committed to long-term association with the
project. She sent emails to all telecommuters associated with the site asking for volunteers
for the study. She provided a list of 13 telecommuters whom we then interviewed. At the
end of each interview, we asked each to provide the name and phone number of his or her
supervisor and a nontelecommuting colleague who reported to the same supervisor. In this
way, telecommuters and nontelecommuters were matched along job positions and
supervisor. In three cases in which two telecommuters reported to the same supervisor,
we interviewed only one nontelecommuter. We interviewed 31 employees at CompuDat,
all by phone.
3.3. Study informants
Supervisors’ job areas included information systems, manufacturing, consulting, sales,

operations, research and development, financial operations, project managers, procurement
managers, human resources, product marketing, and general, regional manager. Telecom-
muters and nontelecommuters held titles such as accountant, business analyst, business
development, buyer, consulting, financial analyst, operations assistant, personnel, proposal
specialist, sales, and software engineer. All supervisors had earned at least a bachelor’s
degree, and telecommuters and nontelecommuters all reported that they had had at least some
college education. Some telecommuters in the sample telecommuted full-time, others tele-
commuted only an hour or two per day, several days a week. Half of the nontelecommuters
had telecommuted at some point in their professional careers, albeit usually for short periods
and informally (not formally sanctioned by the organization). See Table 2 for additional
selected demographics.
3.4. Data collection and analysis
In accordance with the grounded theory approach, we used a semistructured interview

format to collect focused data over a 9-month period. The interviews included three types of
individuals: telecommuters, nontelecommuters, and supervisors of each. Telecommuters and
nontelecommuters were matched by job and reported to the same supervisors. Triangulating
the data gathering process in such a way provided input from three perspectives about, as well
as a reliability check on, each telecommuter’s and manager’s experience. Subjects responded
Table 2
Description of study informants
Gender Age (in years) Job tenure Organizational tenure
Supervisors 3 females, 14 males 35 – 57 1 month – 25 years 8 – 31 years
Telecommuters 16 females, 8 males 31 – 60 3 months – 12 years 3 months – 35 years
Nontelecommuters 3 females, 9 males 31 – 62 2 months – 8.5 years 1 – 39 years
to three types of questions: work-related, demographic, and general (see Appendix A). The
primary task of the first few questions was to establish rapport with the focal person and to
understand the individual’s current job responsibilities. Subsequent questions focused on
telecommuting itself, managerial control strategies, professional isolation perceptions, and
demographics. At the end of each interview, respondents were asked to pinpoint specific
challenges of telecommuting and provide questions they had about the practice. All inter-
views, both face-to-face and by phone, were recorded and transcribed and lasted between 20
and 60 min, yielding several hundred pages of data. We used Atlas software, a qualitative data
analysis package, to code the data.
After conducting and transcribing about half of the interviews, each author separately
coded them for the three types of managerial control strategies (behavior, output, and clan)
and for employee professional isolation concerns. Snell (1992) acted as a guide to distinguish
specific strategies. We next compared our codes to ensure that we were reliably coding for
each of the four factors (i.e., the three control strategies and professional isolation). The entire
coding process yielded multiple behavior, output, and clan tactics managers frequently used
to control their out-of-sight employees; it also uncovered common challenges and concerns
about isolation those managers and employees experience. After identifying trends in these
data, we adapted our interview questions in subsequent interviews. We de-emphasized
questions that no longer seemed relevant or that failed to lead to interesting insights. At
the same time, we pursued topics that surfaced as more interesting and relevant to and for
respondents. For example, we initially did not ask respondents about mentoring, yet several
raised mentoring-related concerns on their own. In these and subsequent interviews, we
probed them about their mentoring concerns.
After we completed the interviews, we again separately and collectively coded and
interpreted the remaining data. During the data analysis process, we generated ideas about
the concepts discussed in some interviews and revisited other interviews to check the degree
to which these relationships held. Additionally, we analyzed the data in two stages. First, we
collated the interviews and, using Atlas, queried for issues such as managerial control
strategies and professional isolation concerns. Next, after noting overall emergent trends and
relationships between managerial actions and employee perceptions, we divided the inter-
views into triads (supervisor, telecommuter(s), and nontelecommuter(s) who worked
together). We examined the degree to which the concepts we discerned from the aggregated
data were present within the triads. We agreed that the data reflected the findings discussed in
the next section. We include quotations to clarify and illustrate these findings.
4. Findings
4.1. Managers and control
Overall, the interviews illustrated that managers employed a variety of behavior, output,
and clan strategies to control behavior. In addition, except for clan controls, managers used
these strategies with both telecommuters and nontelecommuters.
4.1.1. Behavior controls

The behavior controls managers used included audio conference meetings, scheduled face-
to-face interaction, behavior appraised through observation and close supervision, casual
conversation and other informal actions, and defined tasks and job formalization. These
specific strategies allowed managers to influence the work transformation process, as well as
to monitor outputs (refer to Table 1).
Audio conference meetings were the most popular medium to gather team and/or staff
members together to converse in one forum. Supervisors used audio conferencing technology,
enabling employees to call in from multiple locations, including international sites, to meet
vocally. Managers set specific times for these weekly conference calls, using them to
distribute and receive information from employees.
Supervisors scheduled face-to-face interaction. For example, one manager held a weekly
staff meeting in which ‘‘attendance is required.’’ A second manager scheduled weekly sales
meetings ‘‘on Mondays that lasts about 2 hours.’’ Recognizing the need for face-to-face
interaction in the early phases of a software design project, a third manager commented that,
‘‘We only meet on Mondays now that we’re past the design phase.’’ A remote manager held
weekly videoconferences. Still others met consistently, although less frequently, such as once
per month or quarter.
Managers closely supervised and appraised telecommuters’ and nontelecommuters’
behavior through means other than physical observation. They evaluated employees’ work
based not so much on what they did, but on ‘‘how well they did it.’’ Others required
telecommuters to submit written updates of their daily work activities on telecommute days or
visited telecommuters’ homes to ensure that telecommuters maintained a conducive home
working environment.
Supervisors exercised control through casual conversation and/or other types of informal
interactions. For example, one manager casually asked his telecommuters, ‘‘Where are you
gonna work at home? How are you gonna get this [project] done?’’ Another spent
considerable time on the telephone with her people, ‘‘We just phone when we need to
talk to the other about something.’’ While still another managed his telecommuters by
‘‘walking around’’ and he said that he could do that ‘‘within the time that they’re here [at
the site].’’
To control behavior, managers also used defined tasks and/or formalized job requirements.
As one manager commented about a telecommuter: ‘‘[He] can telecommute because
[programmers] have very detailed, defined set[s] of tasks that [need] to be done with specific
due dates.’’ Similarly, two other managers remarked: ‘‘We have a list of specific objectives
[and] tasks they need to accomplish.’’
4.1.2. Output controls

In addition to behavior controls, managers relied on two types of output controls:
management by objectives (MBOs) and performance-linked rewards (refer to Table 1).
Supervisors held both sales and nonsales (e.g., engineers), as well as telecommuting and
nontelecommuting personnel, to preset performance expectations. They matched these
expectations to actual performance to determine employees’ task performance, skill level,
and pay and promotion opportunities. Other managers quantified behavior by monitoring
computer use or on-line actions — information that the supervisor could access without the
employee’s knowledge.
4.1.3. Clan controls

In contrast to the use of behavior and output controls, managers used a variety of
telecommuting-specific tactics to monitor telecommuters’ behavior. These included selecting
employees who had the potential to telecommute successfully and providing telecommuting
training or guidance.
Both organizations specified that telecommuting was an opportunity open to all emplo-
yees, subject to supervisor approval. Supervisors approved telecommuting for those individ-
uals who both requested it and displayed personal and/or job characteristics such as
dependability, ability to work independently, maturity, experience, and those who did not
need to interact face-to-face with on-site customers or colleagues to a significant extent.
However, other managers felt that they were just a rubber stamp since upper management had
mandated that those employees who requested it be allowed to telecommute.
Also, selected managers provided elements of telecommuting training. In one case, the
supervisor talked through the implications of telecommuting with the incipient tele-
commuter and his would-be nontelecommuting colleagues while others talked with
prospective telecommuters about expectations and responsibilities they would be account-
able for while telecommuting.
In general, though, telecommuting training appeared sparse and dependent on the
individual supervisor, despite a contrary belief by Human Resource personnel at both
companies. These personnel stated that their organizations provided telecommuters with
both training and guidelines to foster effective telecommuting. However, many employees
believed their company and supervisor took a ‘‘sink or swim’’ attitude towards telecommut-
ing. While companies supplied technology for use in employees’ home offices, they stopped
short of training both telecommuting and nontelecommuting employees adequately about
expectations, responsibilities, and common challenges each might encounter.
In sum, managers used various behavior, output, and clan strategies. Manager used similar
control strategies for telecommuters and nontelecommuters except for telecommuting-
specific strategies such as telecommuting training and selection and requiring detailed
accounts of work activities on telecommute days.
4.2. Links between managerial control and employee isolation
To further understand the data, we analyzed triads (telecommuter, nontelecommuter, and

their respective supervisor). We found that the perceptions of telecommuters, nontelecom-
muters, and their managers were largely in sync. Each described his/her experience with
telecommuting in a way that mirrored the experiences of the others in that triad. Of more
interest, however, and what emerged from the triad analysis, was an indication that
managerial control issues and employee isolation concerns are inextricably linked. We
illustrate this link below.
Overall, many telecommuters and some supervisors and nontelecommuters voiced con-
cerns about the professional isolation of telecommuters. In particular, telecommuters were
more likely to be concerned about professional isolation when their performance was not
linked primarily to measurable outputs. For example, one telecommuter who was involved in
implementing the telecommuting program in her organization commented:
[W]hen the managers are. . .busy, . . .their very simplistic way of judging what their employee
does is by [the employee’s] time in the chair. So, I think [telecommuters] having concerns that
their rewards will be diminished are probably accurate concerns on their part. [P]robably the
biggest challenge is to help managers understand that just because your employee [is] sitting
in their chair, doesn’t mean that they’re putting out the results. You need to look at how you
measure the results — not just the activity, but the results.
In an extensive article reviewing the trend in telecommuting, Turban and Wang (1995)
concluded that organizations are responding by changing the focus from managing of inputs
to managing of outputs.
We found, however, a shift to managing telecommuters only by results may enhance
telecommuters’ professional isolation concerns. In general, when supervisors assessed
performance ‘‘by the results,’’ their employees indicated that they felt they risked receiving
a fair evaluation or the rewards and acknowledgement that they deserved. Yet, although
assessing outputs could alleviate short-run professional isolation concerns for some tele-
commuters, other telecommuters and supervisors spoke about aspects of telecommuting that
hinder telecommuters’ career advancement and skill development in the long run. That is, if
managers focus only on outputs to manage out-of-sight employees, these employees miss out
on professional development and learning, otherwise garnered from in-sight interaction. This
exclusion can in turn impede long-term professional advancement. In short, out-of-sight
employees become professionally isolated.
4.3. Clan-related challenges of telecommuting
Concerns about long-term professional isolation and the problem of viewing output
controls as a panacea became apparent when (1) managers complained about three clan-
related challenges to telecommuting: team synergy, informal interactive learning, and remote
mentoring; and, (2) employees spoke of impediments to intraorganizational, interpersonal
networking. We discuss each challenge below.
4.3.1. Team synergy

Important clan controls are shared values and trust that contribute to team synergy and
which itself rests on communication and cohesion. Communication and cohesion within work
groups depend on informal face-to-face interaction which is fostered by shared gathering
areas and proximal work stations (Sundstrom, de Meuse, & Futrell, 1990). These cohesion-
fostering conditions are often lacking in telecommuting environments.
In the present study, managers noted that face-to-face contact was critical to creating
mutuality within teams and that reduced face-to-face interaction impeded trust. Fractured trust
and shared values negatively affected group synergy and, ultimately, productivity. As one
manager observed,
Productivity gains are measured when you put people into an office environment and a lot
of synergy’s created. . .When you telecommute. . .there’s a lack of energy that I notice in
the office. . .
Although this manager supported his employee’s choice to telecommute, he still had
difficulty creating the desired cohesion among his employees. This lack of ability to create
synergy in the work group is further evident when telecommuters complained that their
nontelecommuting colleagues do not believe they are working while at home.
4.3.2. Informal interactive learning

In addition to the challenge of creating team synergy, managers complained that tele-
commuters missed out on informal, interactive learning — learning that takes place by the
water cooler, over lunch, or in the hallways (Kugelmass, 1995; Piskurich, 1996). The
following comment from a manager is telling and representative.
It’s much more difficult to communicate with [the telecommuter]. [M]ost communication here
tends to be informal communication, not meetings, not memos, or things like that. We find
that he is probably the least in touch with the general things that are going on in the division
in terms of product ideas, concepts. I mean he can make it for a formal presentation, but those
don’t happen very often compared to work getting done as people just run into folks. . .
Similarly, the telecommuter who reported to this manager stated that a disadvantage of
telecommuting for him was ‘‘being out of touch. . ..Not being up to date on things that are
happening. . .[and not regarding] personal things, but things that are actually business related.’’
When employees work off-site, they miss the learning that occurs, informally, sponta-
neously — learning that cannot be scheduled. Such ‘‘in place career development’’ (Hall &
Richter, 1990; see also, e.g., Becker, 1986) enhances productivity (Argote, 1993; Kraut, Fish,
Root, & Chalfonte, 1990). Yet, telecommuters, especially, miss these implicit, informal learning
opportunities, most of which occur within the work group (e.g., Piskurich, 1996), by being in
close proximity to and observing other coworkers (Brown & Duguid, 1991; Zahn, 1991), and
are context-dependent (Raelin, 1997). Obviously, work performed alone and at home rarely will
provide such implicit learning opportunities. As a result, telecommuters’ opportunities for
informal learning, and consequently, for professional development, may be greatly diminished.
4.3.3. Intraorganizational, interpersonal networking

A third area of concern, which employees noted especially, related to interpersonal
networking internal to the organization. Intraorganizational, interpersonal networking exists
in various forms, including office gossip and work-related, spontaneous discussions
(Davis, 1953; Kurland & Pelled, 2000; Sutton & Porter, 1968), and is akin to informal,
interactive learning.
In the present study, telecommuters stated that they felt ‘‘out of sight,’’ ‘‘out of the loop,’’ and
unable to walk over and ask people questions. They worried that when they were not around
they missed out on being assigned good projects, that credit for their ideas became associated
with others who were on site, or that they remained unknown by others in the employing
organization. In many cases, telecommuters remained highly dependent on their direct
supervisor to promote them and their performance to others. They perceived that this invisibility
translated into lower performance rankings, decreased job performance recognition, and being
overlooked for projects and promotions. While many nontelecommuters believed their super-
visors treated telecommuters the same as nontelecommuters, others thought that an ‘‘out-of-
sight, out-of-mind’’ attitude occasionally prevailed, as the following quotation illustrates:
[An]. . . example would be, let’s say [our boss] walked out here and said, ‘‘Okay, I got this
project. I’m looking for volunteers to work on the CompuDat-Malaysia project and, this is the
opportunity and who’s interested?’’ And, if [my telecommuting co-worker] wasn’t here and
he was interested and somebody else who was, say, an equal candidate as [him] said, ‘‘I’ll
take that.’’ I doubt that [my boss] would say, ‘‘Well, hold on. Let me check with [my
telecommuting co-worker].’’
The telecommuter referenced here sensed this risk and reduced the amount of time he
telecommuted. He expressed that he could very likely have been passed over for projects that
would have required more face-to-face coordination, yet felt that since he was now coming
into the office more frequently and would be ‘‘around more,’’ this risk would decline.
By comparison, telecommuters did not feel professionally isolated when the stakes for
being invisible did not exist (see also Becker, 1986). That is, telecommuters did not feel
professionally isolated if they did not want or expect to be promoted, preferred to keep a low
profile, were company veterans and therefore had a nationwide network in place, were as
disconnected from their boss as were other direct reports, or telecommuted very infrequently,
such as one day every week or every 2 weeks.
In general, interpersonal networks in organizations benefit employees because they allow
people to establish relationships and gain access to information that can advance their
professional careers. When Luthans and his associates studied more than 450 managers, they
found that managers who advanced up the corporate ladder most quickly networked the most
(Luthans, 1988; Luthans, Hodgetts, & Rosenkrantz, 1988). Repeated face-to-face interactions
build trust, build relationships (e.g., Calton & Kurland, 1996; Zucker, 1986), and can build
careers — and the lack of which may not. As employees telecommute more frequently, their
opportunities to develop intraorganizational networks decline, while their managers’ role as
their lifeline to the organization strengthens.
4.3.4. Remote mentoring

A fourth area of concern was mentoring. Managers wondered, ‘‘How do we develop and
mentor our employees virtually?’’ Whereas informal interaction and interpersonal network-
ing enable employees to negotiate an organization’s political infrastructure and informal
learning further develops the employee’s expertise, mentoring does both. A mentor is an
experienced, productive manager who relates well to a less experienced employee and
facilitates his or her personal development for the benefit of the individual as well as that of
the organization (Kram, 1985). Mentors provide feedback, access (to official and unofficial
organization networks, departments, and external networks), and emotional support (Alt-
meyer, Prather, & Thombs, 1994). They advance the protégé’s career mobility (Scandura,
1992), career satisfaction (Fagenson, 1990), and positional power (Ragins, 1997) through
sponsorship, exposure and visibility, coaching, protection, and delegating challenging work
assignments. They act as role models, encourage new behaviors, provide feedback, counsel,
and facilitate informal exchanges of information about work and nonwork experiences
(Kram, 1983, 1985).
Mentoring from a distance is more challenging because mentors are unable to observe
telecommuting employees in action. Consequently, they are less able to coach and to counsel
telecommuters, and to develop them for longer-term organizational success. Hence, the
absence of or reduction in mentoring activities may inhibit telecommuters’ professional
development and advancement.
As one manager commented:
In our business, it’s probably true in a lot of people’s business, the coaching and counseling that
you do with people is really, really critical. And it’s a constant process as a manager. How do you
develop your people? How do you have enough face-to-face, or enough time in a professional
environment with them to be able to see the things they need to improve on? And to be able to
then spend that coaching and counseling time with them? If you do everything remotely, it’s
really hard to get a sense at the end of the quarter, at the end of the half. . . How do you do
somebody’s review? And how do you assess their performance, skills performance? It’s easy to
identify their performance based upon activity and, you know, the results. But how about those
personal development, or skills development issues, that you really need to focus on?
In this passage, an upper-level sales manager expressed frustration about effectively
mentoring employees in virtual environments. As a sales manager, he relied heavily on output
controls to monitor performance. Yet, he was still concerned about developing his employees.
The following manager felt similarly frustrated:
There are certain things that you just don’t tend to talk about [on the phone]. You know,
there may be things that bother you about your job. . .. And people just don’t think about
picking up the phone to call me and tell me those challenges. For example, this week. . . I
was able to meet up with one of my employees and we just went out and spent the evening
together just talking. And a whole bunch of stuff came out that he would’ve never told me
on a phone call. . .. when we’re on the phone we are so focused on day-to-day tasks and job
opportunities that are coming up. . .I don’t know what they’re thinking and feeling when I
don’t see them.
In this case, the manager felt frustrated because she could not communicate on a deeper
level with her employees to better understand how they were doing. She believed that the
type of information and personal connection she sought was difficult to achieve without
frequent face-to-face interaction.
In short, these findings suggest that managers and employees observed that the absence of
team synergy, informal learning, intraorganizational, interpersonal networking, and effective
remote mentoring could impede telecommuters’ professional development and, ultimately,
organizational productivity. Revealing these clan-related challenges to telecommuting makes
salient telecommuters’ concerns about professional isolation and emphasizes the need to
relegate a focus on output controls from the position of a panacea.
5. Conclusions
Findings from this study suggest four conclusions about managerial control and employee
isolation in telecommuting environments. First, managers’ fear that they lose control when
employees telecommute appears unfounded. Managers maintain control over off-site
employees through various behavior and output strategies and only rarely adapt these
strategies for use when employees telecommute. Second, organizations inadequately train
telecommuters, nontelecommuters, and their supervisors for telecommuting, potentially
causing misperceptions and miscommunications. Third, telecommuters are most likely to
perceive they are professionally isolated when they telecommute frequently, expect to do so
for a long time, have been with the organization for a short time, and/or want and expect to
be promoted.
Last, although managerial control and professional isolation concerns are distinct issues felt
by different parties to the telecommuting arrangement, they appear to be inextricably linked.
Telecommuters’ long-term professional development may suffer when they do not have
regular opportunities to bounce ideas off other employees — a process of informal, interactive
learning and a benefit of team synergy and intraorganizational, interpersonal networking.
Similarly, telecommuters’ mentoring relationships may languish as managers struggle with
the challenge posed by remote mentoring. As voiced above, managers were less able to foster
telecommuters’ long-term career development, which resulted in either managers relocating
telecommuters to a different position or telecommuters returning to the office. In addition,
when managers focus only on results, they may value employees primarily in the short term.
In the short term, managers can observe what employees do in the present, but cannot
necessarily develop employees professionally for long-term career advancement.
In short, this study revealed that for telecommuting to be a successful workplace alternative
and not just a short-term solution, managers need to learn how to be effective remote mentors
and managers and employees need forums in which to interact informally, develop interper-
sonal organizational networks, and create synergistic team relationships. Moreover, these
forums must be designed to make them as accessible to telecommuters as nontelecommuters.
Acknowledgments
An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 1998 International Association for
Business and Society, Kona, HI, June. Funding for this study was provided by the Zumberge
Research and Innovation Award, University of Southern California. We would like to thank
Paul Adler, Diane Bailey, Tom Cummings, David Finegold, Sue Mohrman, Lisa Pelled, and
Gretchen Spreitzer for their excellent comments on earlier drafts. All errors are our own. Do
not quote without authors’ permission.
Appendix A. Interview questions
The questions presented below guided interviews with telecommuters. Questions were
altered appropriately for supervisors and nontelecommuters.
A.1. Work issues
1. Tell me about your job, job title?

2. Why do you want to telecommute?
3. How often do you telecommute?
4. Are you happy you’re telecommuting? Why or why not?
5. Describe some benefits you experience because you telecommute.
6. Describe some of the drawbacks of telecommuting.
7. Because you’re telecommuting now, what expectations do you have with respect
to your:
8. performance?
9. the amount and nature of your communication with your supervisor, colleagues,
customers, and other work-related people?
10. the type and amount of ongoing training you’ll receive?
11. opportunities for rewards and promotions?
12. Other expectations?
13. Have these changed since you started telecommuting? How?
14. Has your relationship with colleagues, supervisors, customers, etc. changed since you
started telecommuting? How?
15. How do your colleagues and work friends feel about you telecommuting?
16. Does telecommuting affect your ability to be creative in your work? If, so how? Does
telecommuting affect your intellectual activity? If so, how? For example, does it:
17. Engender freedom?
18. Keep your thinking sharp?
19. Dull your thinking because you don’t have constant intellectual stimulation from those
around you?
20. Do you have colleagues and/or friends with whom you hash out ideas? If so, how often
do you interact with these people? And what type of communication media do you use
(email? telephone? face-to-face?)? Who do you communicate with mostly?
21. Did you volunteer to telecommute or were you assigned to it? If you volunteered,
why? Is the option to telecommute a reward?
22. How does your supervisor feel about you telecommuting?
23. How has the nature of your communication with colleagues and your supervisor
changed since you’ve started to telecommute?
24. How is your performance evaluated? Has this changed since you started telecommuting?
25. -more results-oriented?
26. -more formal job guidelines?
27. -more formal communication?
28. Do you believe that telecommuting has impeded the rewards you receive that you
believe you deserve (e.g., promotions)? Why or why not?
29. Since you’ve been telecommuting, do you find it easier or more difficult to
communicate with your supervisor and/or colleagues about issues that are important to
you, both personal and work-related? Why or why not?
30. Do you work in groups or teams?
A.2. Self issues
Demographic data
a. years telecommuting?
b. years with current company?
c. years in current job?
d. sex?
e. age?
f. children? ages?
g. children living at home?
h. marital status?
i. spouse’s occupation; does spouse telecommute?
j. estimated family income? (Respondents were provided a choice of six ranges.)
k. your highest level of education?
l. other relevant information you’d like to share?
A.3. General
1. If you could change anything, what would you change to improve your telecommuting
experience?
2. What about telecommuting do you find most challenging?
3. What did we miss?
4. What would you like to know about telecommuting?
References
Altmeyer, A. S., Prather, F., & Thombs, D. L. (1994). Mentoring-in-public-administration scales: construct
validation and relationship to level of management. Public Productivity and Management Review, XVII (4),
387 – 397.
Argote, L. (1993). Group and organizational learning curves: individual, system, and environmental components.
British Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 31 – 51.
Bailyn, L. (1988). Freeing work from the constraints of location and time. New Technology, Work, and Employ-
ment, 3 (2), 143 – 152.
Baruch, Y., & Nicholson, N. (1997). Home, sweet work: requirements for effective home working. Journal of
General Management, 23 (2), 15 – 30.
Becker, F. D. (1986). Loosely-coupled settings: a strategy for computer-aided work decentralization. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 8, 199 – 231.
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: toward a unified view of
working, learning, and innovating. Organization Science, 2 (1), 40 – 57.
Calton, J. C., & Kurland, N. B. (1996). A theory of stakeholder enabling: giving voice to an emerging postmodern
praxis of organizational discourse. In: D. Boje, R. Gephart Jr., & T. Joseph (Eds.), Postmodern management
and organizational theory ( pp. 154 – 177). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Campagna, F. W. (1996, December). Managing Telecommuters. Training and Development, 50, 9.
Christenson, K. E. (1988). Women and home-based work: the unspoken contract. New York: Henry, Holt,
and Company.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Davis, K. (1953). A method of studying communication patterns in organizations. Personnel Psychology, VI,
301 – 312.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1985). Control: organizational and economic approaches. Management Science, 31 (2),
134 – 149.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14 (4),
532 – 550.
Fagenson, E. A. (1990). At the heart of women in management research: theoretical and methodological ap-
proaches and their biases. Journal of Business Ethics, 9, 267 – 274.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). Discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research.
Chicago: Aldine.
Hall, D. T., & Richter, J. (1990). Career gridlock: Baby Boomers hit the wall. Academy of Management Executive,
4 (3), 7 – 22.
Hamblin, H. (1995). Employees’ perspectives on one dimension of labour flexibility: working at a distance. Work,
Employment and Society, 9 (3), 473 – 498.
International Telework Association (2000). Available at: http://www.telecommute.org/.
Kram, K. E. (1983). Phases of the mentor relationship. Academy of Management Journal, 26 (4), 608 – 625.
Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foreman.
Kraut, R. R., Fish, R. S., Root, R. W., & Chalfonte, B. L. (1990). Informal communication in organizations: form,
function, and technology. In: S. Oskamp, & S. Spacapan (Eds.), People’s reactions to technology in factories,
offices, and aerospace ( pp. 145 – 199). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Kugelmass, J. (1995). Telecommuting: a manager’s guide to flexible work arrangements. New York:
Lexington Books.
Kurland, N. B., & Bailey, D. E. (1999, Autumn). When workers are here, there, and everywhere: a discussion of
the advantages and challenges of telework. Organizational Dynamics, 53 – 68.
Kurland, N. B., & Egan, T. E. (1999). Telecommuting: justice and control in the virtual organization. Organization
Science, 10 (4), 500 – 513.
Kurland, N. B., & Pelled, L. H. (2000). Passing the word: toward a model of gossip and power in the workplace.
Academy of Management Review, 25 (2), 428 – 439.
Luthans, F. (1988). Successful vs. effective real managers. Academy of Management Executive, 2, 127 – 132.
Luthans, F., Hodgetts, R. M., & Rosenkrantz, S. A. (1988). Real managers. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing.
Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Mokhtarian, P. L., Bagley, M. N., & Salomon, I. (1998). The impact of gender, occupation, and presence of
children on telecommuting motivations and constraints. Journal of the American Society for Information
Science (Special Issue on Social Informatics), 49 (12), 1115 – 1134.
Mokhtarian, P. L., & Salomon, I. (1996a). Modeling the choice of telecommuting: 2. A case of the preferred
impossible alternative. Environment and Planning, 28, 1859 – 1876.
Mokhtarian, P. L., & Salomon, I. (1996b). Modeling the choice of telecommuting: 3. Identifying the choice set and
estimating binary choice models for technology-based alternatives. Environment and Planning, 28, 1877 – 1894.
Nilles, J. M. (1994). Making telecommuting happen. New York: Van Nostrand-Reinhold.

Olson, M. H. (1982, December). New information technology and organizational culture. Management Informa-
tion Systems Quarterly, 6, 71 – 92.
Ouchi, W. (1979). A conceptual framework for the design of organizational control mechanisms. Management
Science, 25 (9), 833 – 848.
Ouchi, W. (1980). Markets, bureaucracies, and clans. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 124 – 141.
Ouchi, W. G., & Maguire, M. (1975). Organizational control: two functions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20,
559 – 569.
Piskurich, G. (1996, February). Making telecommuting work. Training and Development, 50, 20 – 27.
Raelin, J. (1997). A model of work-based learning. Organization Science, 8 (6), 563 – 578.
Ragins, B. R. (1997). Diversified mentoring relationships in organizations: a power perspective. Academy of
Management Review, 22 (2), 482 – 521.
Rowe, W. G., & Wright, P. M. (1997). Related and unrelated diversification and their effect on human resource
management controls. Strategic Management Journal, 18 (4), 329 – 338.
Salomon, I., & Salomon, M. (1984). Telecommuting: the employee’s perspective. Technological Forecasting and
Social Change: An International Journal, 25 (1), 15 – 28.
Scandura, T. A. (1992). Mentorship and career mobility: an empirical investigation. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 13, 169 – 174.
Shamir, B., & Salomon, I. (1985). Work-at-home and the quality of working life. Academy of Management
Review, 10 (3), 455 – 464.
Snell, S. A. (1992). Control theory in strategic human resource management: the mediating effect of adminis-
trative information. Academy of Management Journal, 35 (2), 292 – 327.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Sundstrom, E., de Meuse, K. P., & Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams: applications and effectiveness. American
Psychologist, 45 (2), 120 – 133.
Sutton, H., & Porter, L. W. (1968). A study of the grapevine in a governmental organization. Personnel Psychol-
ogy, 21, 223 – 230.
Tannenbaum, A. S. (1968). The social psychology of work organization. Belmont, CA: Brooks-Cole.
Tomaskovic-Devey, D., & Risman, B. J. (1993). Telecommuting innovation and organization: a contingency
theory of labor process change. Social Science Quarterly, 74 (2), 367 – 385.
Turban, E., & Wang, P. (1995). Telecommuting management: a comprehensive overview. Human Systems Man-
agement, 14 (3), 227 – 238.
Zahn, G. L. (1991). Face-to-face communication in an office setting: the effects of position, proximity, and
exposure. Communication Research, 18 (6), 737 – 754.
Zuboff, S. (1982, September – October). New worlds of computer-mediated work. Harvard Business Review,
142 – 152.
Zucker, L. G. (1986). Production of trust: institutional sources of economic structure, 1840 – 1920. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 8, 53 – 111.

Manager Control and Employee Isolation in Telecommuting Environments

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Manager Control and Employee Isolation in Telecommuting Environments

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of High Technology

Management Research 13 (2002) 107 – 126

Manager control and employee isolation in

Keywords: Telecommuting; Employee professional development; Qualitative; Mentoring; Informal learning

Telecommunications and computer technology make working at home possible for

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-213-740-0734.

2. Defining control and isolation

2.1. Manager control

Telecommuting can diminish a manager’s perceived control as it physically removes

activities and output

2.2. Managerial control and telecommuting

2.3. Employee professional isolation

Telecommuting research has exposed employees’ professional isolation concerns. For

Proposition 2: Managers and telecommuters perceive that telecommuters are

3.1. The context: telecommuting in two high-technology firms

IntelliDat (a pseudonym) was the largest subsidiary of a US$36-billion computer,

3.2. Human resource staff and participant contacts

At CompuDat, we initially contacted the telecommuting director while visiting the

3.3. Study informants

Supervisors’ job areas included information systems, manufacturing, consulting, sales,

3.4. Data collection and analysis

In accordance with the grounded theory approach, we used a semistructured interview

4.1. Managers and control

4.1.1. Behavior controls

4.1.2. Output controls

4.1.3. Clan controls

4.2. Links between managerial control and employee isolation

To further understand the data, we analyzed triads (telecommuter, nontelecommuter, and

4.3. Clan-related challenges of telecommuting

4.3.1. Team synergy

4.3.2. Informal interactive learning

4.3.3. Intraorganizational, interpersonal networking

4.3.4. Remote mentoring

Appendix A. Interview questions

A.1. Work issues

1. Tell me about your job, job title?

A.2. Self issues

Nilles, J. M. (1994). Making telecommuting happen. New York: Van Nostrand-Reinhold.

You might also like