A Self-E Cacy Theory Explanation For The Management of Remote Workers in Virtual Organizations

15/06/2021 Self-Efficacy Theory Explanation for the Management of Remote Workers in Virtual Organizations | Journal of Computer-Mediated Com…
A Self-Efficacy Theory Explanation for the

Management of Remote Workers in
Virtual Organizations

D. Sandy Staples  ,
John S. Hulland  ,
Christopher A. Higgins
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Volume 3, Issue 4, 1 June

1998, JCMC342, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1998.tb00085.x
Published:
01 June 1998
Abstract
The current study is a first step in investigating how virtual
organizations can manage remote employees effectively. The
research used self-efficacy theory to build a model that predicts
relationships between antecedents to employees' remote work
self-efficacy assessments and their behavioral and attitudinal
consequences. The model was tested using responses from 376
remotely-managed employees in 18 diverse organizations.
Overall, the results indicated that remote employees' self-
efficacy assessments play a critical role in influencing their
remote work effectiveness, perceived productivity, job
satisfaction and ability to cope. Furthermore, strong
relationships were observed between employees' remote work
self-efficacy judgments and several antecedents, including
remote work experience and training, best practices modeling
by management, computer anxiety, and IT capabilities. Because
many of these antecedents can be controlled managerially, these
findings suggest important ways in which a remote employee's
work performance can be enhanced, through the intermediary
effect of improved remote work self-efficacy. The current study
also provides a basis for future research in the remote work area
through its development and testing of a remote management
framework.
Issue Section:
Original Article
https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/3/4/JCMC342/4584417?login=true 1/48
Introduction
Information technology is enabling new organizational structures

that are challenging traditional management thinking. One such
structure is the virtual organization that consists of individuals
working toward a common goal, but without centralized buildings,
physical plant, or other characteristics of a traditional organization
(Hartman & Guss, 1996). This virtual design places unique burdens
on communication and management processes, which must be
rethought in order for organizations to maximize the benefits of the
new, virtual structure.
There are clear trends towards increased virtual work and greater
reliance on technology. Consequently, we need to learn more about
virtual organizations. This task is, however, difficult for researchers,
and may help explain why there is a dearth of research on the topic.
One reason for this difficulty relates to the speed of change. As
information technology (IT) researchers are well aware, researching
a movable target presents unique challenges.
The topic, however, is critical and needs to be researched. As a

starting point, one can look at telecommuting, which has been
extensively studied starting in the late 1970s. This research has found
that management issues are a significant factor preventing
widespread adoption of telecommuting (DeSanctis, 1984; Duxbury &
Haines, 1991; Duxbury, Higgins & Irving, 1987; Huws, 1990; Phelps,
1985; Risman & Tomaskovic-Devey, 1989; Roderick & Jelley, 1991).
This implies that the issue of managing remote workers in virtual
organizations is critical and needs to be better understood. As Lucas
(1996) notes, with the rapid growth in virtual organizations, research
is clearly needed on what organizations and managers can do to make
their remote employees more effective.
To address this need, a model of remote work self-efficacy was

developed linking the limited existing literature regarding remote
work and remote management with self-efficacy theory. Self-
efficacy is the judgment an individual makes about his or her ability

to execute a particular behavior (Bandura, 1978). According to self-
efficacy theory, if organizations can learn how to increase their
employees' self-efficacy judgments about their abilities to complete
relevant remote work tasks, this should lead to improved
performance.
Self-efficacy has been used as the theoretical framework because it

has consistently been found to be associated with work-related
performance in numerous studies, including those of life insurance
sales (Barling & Beattie, 1983), faculty research productivity (Taylor,
Locke, Lee & Gist, 1984), coping with difficult career-related tasks
(Stumpf, Brief & Hartman, 1987), career choice (Lent, Brown &
Larkin, 1987), and adaptability to new technology (Hill, Smith &
Mann, 1987). Given its successful application in many domains where
individuals have considerable autonomy, self-efficacy theory appears
to be particularly well suited to the virtual organization context.
Remote employees enjoy considerable work autonomy in a virtual
organization but must also rely on their own abilities to carry out and
complete various tasks. Self-efficacy theory can be used to
incorporate a variety of aspects that Staples (1996) suggested are
particularly important in a remote work setting into a single model.
For example, information technology (IT) appears to be a key driver
of remote work, allowing companies to establish virtual
arrangements that permit greater employee flexibility without
sacrificing managerial control and that facilitates communication
(Freedman, 1993; Handy, 1995; Illingworth, 1994; Lucas & Baroudi,
1994; Mowshowitz, 1994). Other drivers of effective remote work in
the virtual organization include: (1) effective communication
between the manager and employee (Donaldson, 1990; Stanton &
Buskirk, 1987; Staples, 1996), (2) experience and training with
remote management and remote working arrangements (Stanton &
Buskirk, 1987; Staples, 1996), and (3) effective management
practices, including the establishment of realistic expectations about
the amount of face-to-face time that will be available (Staples, 1996)
and the setting of performance expectations (Gerber, 1995;
Greengard, 1994; Illingworth, 1994; Mowshowitz, 1994).
The roles played by these drivers, and their individual impacts on

both remote workers' attitudes and their performance, was
investigated in the current study using self-efficacy as the theoretical
basis for the developed model. Survey data collected from 376
remotely-managed employees was used to test this model.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Self-efficacy

theory is described in the next section. This is followed by a
description of the research model and its hypotheses, a presentation
of the research methodology employed, a description of the results,
and finally a discussion of the findings, including suggestions for
future research and management practice.
Self-Efficacy Theory
Self-efficacy theory is an important component of Bandura's (1986)

more general social cognitive theory, which suggests that an
individual's behavior, environment, and cognitive factors (i.e.,
outcome expectations and self-efficacy) are all highly inter-related.
Bandura (1978, p. 240) defined self-efficacy as “a judgment of one's
ability to execute a particular behavior pattern.”Wood and Bandura
(1989) expanded upon this definition by suggesting that self-efficacy
beliefs form a central role in the regulatory process through which an
individual's motivation and performance attainments are governed.
Self-efficacy judgments also determine how much effort people will
spend on a task and how long they will persist with it. People with
strong self-efficacy beliefs exert greater efforts to master a challenge
while those with weak self-efficacy beliefs are likely to reduce their
efforts or even quit (Bandura & Schunk, 1981; Brown & Inouyne, 1978;
Schunk, 1981; Weinberg, Gould & Jackson, 1979).
Self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1977) suggests that there are four

major sources of information used by individuals when forming self-
efficacy judgments (see Figure 1). In order of strength, the first is
performance accomplishments, which refers to personal assessment
information that is based on an individual's personal mastery
accomplishments (i.e., past experiences with the specific task being
investigated). Previous successes raise mastery expectations, while
repeated failures lower them (Gist & Mitchell, 1992; Saks, 1995;
Silver, Mitchell & Gist, 1995). The second is vicarious experience,
which is gained by observing others perform activities successfully.
This is often referred to as modeling, and it can generate expectations
in observers that they can improve their own performance by
learning from what they have observed (Bandura, 1978; Gist &
Mitchell, 1992). Social persuasion is the third, and it refers to
activities where people are led, through suggestion, into believing
that they can cope successfully with specific tasks. Coaching and
giving evaluative feedback on performance are common types of
social persuasion (Bandura, 1977; Bandura & Cervone, 1986). The
final source of information is physiological and emotional states. The
individual's physiological or emotional states influence self-efficacy
judgments with respect to specific tasks. Emotional reactions to such
tasks (e.g., anxiety) can lead to negative judgments of one's ability to
complete the tasks (Bandura, 1988).
Figure 1
Self-Efficacy Theory
Bandura (1982) reviewed a variety of different lines of self-efficacy

research, and concluded that self-efficacy theory has considerable
potential explanatory power. His review found that perceived self-
efficacy helps to account for a wide variety of individual behaviors,
including: changes in coping behavior produced by different modes of

influence, levels of physiological stress reactions, self-regulation,
achievement strivings, growth of intrinsic interest, and choice of
career pursuits.
Self-efficacy has been shown to apply across a wide range of

situations and is a good predictor of subsequent performance and
behavior (Bandura, 1978, Gist & Mitchell, 1992). From his observation
of the results from various experiments, Bandura (1982, p. 61)
concluded that “perceived efficacy is often a better predictor of
behavior in generalization tests than is past performance. … Behavior
is raw data that must be cognitively appraised for its efficacy value.”
Other authors (Gist, 1989; Gist, Schwoerer, & Rosen, 1989; Locke,
1991) have also concluded that the empirical evidence supporting
self-efficacy theory is very strong.
The theory appears to be particularly well suited to studying virtual

organizations. The remote employees in such organizations typically
work with minimal supervision and rely heavily on their own abilities
and initiative to perform their job tasks. Information technology is
the typical medium used to communicate with management since
face-to-face interaction is rare or infrequent. Often the employee
works in a location with few or no co-workers, so the potential for
isolation can be high and the availability of co-worker advice is often
low. Since remote employees enjoy considerable work autonomy, the
potential impact that their own motivation and beliefs in their
abilities (i.e., self-efficacy judgments) can have on their outcomes
may be considerably more than for employees whose behaviors are
under tighter supervision. Therefore, virtual organizations that learn
how to maximize employees' self-efficacy with respect to working
remotely may reap greater benefits from a virtual working
environment.
The Research Model and Hypotheses
A research model (see Figure 2) was developed which integrates self-

efficacy theory with important remote management issues, as
identified in the literature (Illingworth, 1994; Lucas & Baroudi, 1994;
Mowshowitz, 1994; Stanton & Buskirk, 1987; Staples, 1996). To

facilitate subsequent exploration of this model, the discussion below
is divided into three separate areas: (1) antecedents to self-efficacy,
(2) self-efficacy judgments, and (3) outcomes of self-efficacy. The
antecedents (shown on the left-hand side in Figure 2) represent the
various sources of information which individuals can use to develop
1
their self-efficacy judgments. This information affects remote
employees' self-efficacy to work remotely (or, equivalently,
employees' confidence that they can work effectively in a remote
environment). Effectiveness of remote work is represented (in the
right-hand side of the model) by a number of outcomes, including
work attitudes (e.g., job satisfaction, organizational commitment)
and behaviors (e.g., performance, job stress). Each of these groups of
constructs is discussed further below.
Figure 2
The Research Model
However, before turning to this more detailed discussion, several

issues relating to the self-efficacy constructs need to be mentioned.
First, the central construct of self-efficacy is divided here into two
separate components in the proposed model. Self-efficacy theory
suggests that self-efficacy judgments are relatively task specific
(Bandura, 1977, 1978). In the current model, both IT self-efficacy and
remote work self-efficacy were considered. Previous research by

Staples (1997) found that these two were both conceptually and
empirically distinct from one another. The remote work self-efficacy
construct captured the self-efficacy of working and being managed
remotely at a general level. In contrast, the information technology
self-efficacy construct captured the respondent's perceived self-
efficacy of using available information technology.
IT self-efficacy was modeled here as an antecedent to remote work

self-efficacy, a perspective which is consistent with prior research
(Freedman, 1993; Handy, 1995; Illingworth, 1994; Lucas & Baroudi,
1994; Mowshowitz, 1994; Staples, 1996). Specifically, this suggests
that the ability to use IT is an important precursor to an individual's
ability to perform effectively in a remote management environment.
Antecedents
The hypotheses associated with each path of the research model,

linking antecedents to self-efficacy and self-efficacy to
consequences, are discussed below. We first examine the links
between potential antecedents to self-efficacy and the self-efficacy
constructs.
Experience and training: Past experience and training provide

individuals with information about their past performance
accomplishments. In general, the longer one has been working
remotely, the more experience one is likely to have. Furthermore,
relevant training (i.e., how to work effectively in a remote
environment) will also contribute information about performance
accomplishment to individuals' self-efficacy beliefs. For example,
studies have shown that some training methods can enhance self-
efficacy in the areas of self-management (Frayne & Latham, 1987),
cognitive modeling (Gist, 1989), behavior modeling (Gist, Schwoerer
& Rosen, 1989) and the use of information technology (Compeau,
1992). Saks (1995) also found training to be an important source of
information and experience for changing self-efficacy beliefs. Thus:
Hypothesis 1: More experience and training in working remotely

leads to a higher judgment of self-efficacy regarding one's ability
to work remotely.
Information Technology Experience: Since information technology is

a key enabler of the remote work environment, using IT is potentially
an important task for effective remote work (Freedman, 1993; Handy,
1995; Illingworth, 1994; Lucas & Baroudi, 1994; Mowshowitz, 1994;
Staples, 1996). Consistent with our previous argument, an
individual's experience and training with the IT which is available for
use in the remote environment is likely to influence his or her self-
efficacy assessments. Specifically, self-efficacy theory suggests that
the more training individuals have regarding available information
technology, the more effectively they should be able to use it. Thus:
Hypothesis 2: The greater one's experience and training with

available information technology, the higher one's self-efficacy.
Modeling: Use of effective remote management/working practices by

the employee's manager and co-workers are vicarious sources of
self-efficacy information for the employee. Self-efficacy theory
suggests that modeling can boost perceived efficacy by teaching
observers effective ways of dealing with challenging or threatening
situations (Bandura, 1978). Modeling can also make an observer
believe that potential threats are more manageable than previously
believed (Bandura, 1978). Therefore, being able to experience others'
effective remote work behaviors can potentially affect an individual's
own remote work self-efficacy beliefs. Specifically, uses of effective
remote management/working practices by an employee's manager
represent sources of modeling information that may affect the
employee's judgment of his or her own abilities to be effective at
2
remote work tasks. Thus:
Hypothesis 3: The more an employee's manager utilizes effective

remote management and working practices, the higher the
employee's remote work self-efficacy.
Anxiety: According to self-efficacy theory, information obtained

through one's physiological states represents another source of self-
efficacy information, although a relatively weak one. Since the
literature suggests that information technology plays a key role in
enabling remote work, the employee's physiological state towards
computers (i.e., computer anxiety) was included in the current
research model. While computer anxiety does not represent anxiety
towards all forms of IT, it does appear to capture a large component

of general IT anxiety. Self-efficacy theory predicts that high
computer anxiety should lead to lower self-efficacy:
Hypothesis 4: The higher the employee's computer anxiety level,

the lower the employee's remote work self-efficacy.
Environmental Factors: The last source of self-efficacy information

in the current research model deals with environmental factors. As
suggested by Gist and Mitchell (1992), the environment can
contribute a variety of cues that influence self-efficacy assessments.
Two environmental factors were included in the model examined
here: physical conditions and level of connectivity. Physical working
conditions was suggested by Gist and Mitchell (1992) as a possible
environmental factor which could affect self-efficacy judgments, and
it was found to be an important issue for remote workers (Staples,
1996). Gist and Mitchell (1992) suggested that a good physical
working environment will positively impact an individual's
performance beliefs. Distractions, noise, and interruptions will all
likely hurt performance, as will inadequate physical conditions (e.g.,
inadequate furniture and space). Thus:
Hypothesis 5: Positive physical working conditions will be

associated with higher levels of employee remote work self-
efficacy.
The second environmental factor included in the model was level of

connectivity. The level of connectivity that the remote employee has
to his/her manager and co-workers, defined here by the types of
information technology available for use, is likely to affect both the
ease of and amount of communication undertaken. This is consistent
with the literature suggesting that virtual organizations are enabled
by IT (e.g., Freedman, 1993; Handy, 1995; Illingworth, 1994; Lucas,
1996; Lucas & Baroudi, 1994; Mowshowitz, 1994). Consequently,
level of connectivity is likely to be an important cue to individuals in
determining their beliefs that they can carry out certain tasks:
Hypothesis 6: The greater the level of connectivity provided to an

employee, the higher the employee's remote work self-efficacy.
Self-Efficacy
The ability to use IT represents an important component in an

employee's ability to perform effectively in a remote management
environment. Therefore, high levels of IT self-efficacy should also
enhance the remotely-managed employee's remote work self-
efficacy, and their ability to work effectively in a remote management
setting:
Hypothesis 7: Higher levels of information-technology self-

efficacy will be associated with higher levels of remote work self-
efficacy.
Outcomes of Self-Efficacy
Five outcome variables were included in the research model, as

shown on the right-hand side of Figure 2. The first outcome,
performance, is an integral part of self-efficacy theory. The other
four outcomes were suggested by previous research and the results of
19 focus group sessions (Staples, 1996, 1997). The focus groups were
carried out with 104 remote managers and remotely-managed
employees from five North American organizations to identify the
key issues of remote management and remote work and to identify
potential best practices. The findings of this research suggested that
the other four outcome variables in Figure 2, namely job satisfaction,
coping ability, organizational commitment, and job stress were all
important in a remote management context.
Performance: Previous studies have found that self-efficacy is linked

closely to task performance (e.g., Bandura, 1978; Gist & Mitchell,
1992; Locke, 1991). In the present context, this body of research
suggests that employees who have a high level of remote work self-
efficacy are likely to believe that they are more effective at
performing tasks that enable remote work, and thus believe that they
are more effective remote workers overall:
Hypothesis 8: High levels of employee self-efficacy on remote

work-enabling tasks will be related to employees' positive
perceptions of their performance.
Job Satisfaction: In his summary of previous research, Locke (1976)

suggested that information on the task activities, achievement,
rewards, working conditions, and management practices can all have
an impact on individuals' perceptions of job satisfaction. These

constructs are all viewed as antecedents to job satisfaction in our
research model. Furthermore, participants in the focus group
research by Staples (1996) suggested that perceptions of job
satisfaction in a virtual environment would vary depending upon the
support and activities of management and on the remote individual's
competence in working remotely. Taken together, these results
suggest that positive judgments about one's ability to perform tasks
(i.e., self-efficacy) should have a positive impact on the satisfaction
associated with one's doing those tasks (i.e., job satisfaction).
Although this prediction is not based on existing self-efficacy theory,
it represents a natural extension of the theory:
Hypothesis 9: High levels of employee remote work self-efficacy

will lead to higher levels of remote job satisfaction.
Ability to Cope: Previous research has found significant relationships

between self-efficacy and ability to cope (Bandura, 1982; Saks, 1995).
Specifically, self-efficacy has been found to be positively associated
with an individual's ability to cope with a variety of different
situations. Thus:

are positively related to the employee's ability to cope.
Organizational Commitment: Staples (1996) found that feelings of

isolation could lower an individual's organizational commitment in
virtual work settings. However, he also found that effective
management practices and communication often reduce such
feelings of isolation while increasing organizational commitment. It
therefore appears reasonable to hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 11: High levels of remote work self-efficacy in an

employee will be positively related to his or her level of
organizational commitment.
Job Stress: Previous research has demonstrated a significant

relationship between self-efficacy and stress (e.g., Bandura, 1982;
Saks, 1995). Specifically, increases in self-efficacy have been found to
be negatively associated with stress:

will be related to lower levels of employee job stress.
Method
A quantitative research design was chosen to examine the proposed

relationships among the various constructs in the research model. A
questionnaire was used in order to facilitate collection of information
from a large and geographically dispersed sample. This section
describes the sampling method, construct measures, and analysis
methods employed.
Sample
A questionnaire was sent to 1,343 individuals working in 18 North
American organizations, who (1) employed individuals who worked
remotely from their managers, and (2) were interested in
participating in a study of remote management. Completed
questionnaires from 631 respondents were returned, for an overall
response rate of 47%. Use of the procedure suggested by Armstrong
and Overton (1977) indicated no significant differences between
respondents and non-respondents on a variety of demographic
variables included in the questionnaire. Thus, non-response bias did
not appear to be a major problem.
In the current study, workers were defined as remote or non-remote

in terms of their physical proximity to their managers. If employees
worked in a different building than their managers (which could be
across the city, the state, the country, or even the globe), the
employees were considered to be remote workers, since they were
working remotely from their managers. In virtual organizations,
many employees regularly conduct work in locations that are remote
from managers and co-workers.
A total of 376 of the returned questionnaires were from remotely-

managed employees, representing the actual sample of interest for
3
the study reported here. Forty-seven percent of these respondents
worked in private sector high technology firms, 22% worked in
private sector financial service firms, and the remaining 31% worked
in the public sector. Although all employees included in this sample
worked remotely, only seventeen per cent actually worked at home,
with the vast majority of the seventeen percent indicating that it was
easy for them to do so. The median distance between the
respondents’ office and their managers’ office was 483 kilometres.
Construct Measurement
The questionnaire completed by the respondents contained multiple
measurement items relating to each of the constructs in the research
model. Wherever possible, appropriate scales that had demonstrated
good psychometric properties in previous studies were employed.
However, for the remaining constructs, sets of items were generated
based on reviews of previous relevant literature and expert opinion.
In order to achieve acceptable levels of measurement reliability and

validity, both a pre-test and a pilot study were carried out, following
the guidelines suggested by Dillman (1978). Questionnaire pre-
testing was first completed using faculty, graduate student, and
practitioner input. This information was used to refine the original
survey instrument. A preliminary pilot study questionnaire was then
administered to remote employees in one insurance firm, resulting in
64 responses. The resulting data were analyzed and used to further
modify the questionnaire items for the full study.
Appendix A contains a list of the items used to measure the

constructs. The number of items used to measure each construct and
the resulting internal consistencies of the constructs are provided in
Table 1.
Table 1 Internal Consistency of the Constructs
Construct Number of Items Internal Consistency
Remote Work Experience & Training 3 .85
IT Experience and Training 6 .85
Modeling best practices by Manager 14 .95
Computer Anxiety 4 .94
Physical Conditions 2 .92
Connectivity 3 .88
IT Self-efficacy 4 .78
Remote Work Self-efficacy 1 −
Remote Work Effectiveness 4 .87
Overall Productivity 6 .93
Satisfaction with Management 5 .92
Satisfaction with Other Job Factors 5 .77
Ability to Cope 4 .90
Organizational Commitment 4 .92
Job Stress 5 .88
Five of the constructs were measured using scales taken from the
literature. A short form of the Computer Anxiety Rating Scale
(Heinssen, Glass & Knight, 1987), developed by Compeau (1992), was
used to assess computer anxiety of respondents. Four items from
House, Schuler, and Levanoni's (1983) role ambiguity/coping ability
scale were used to measure ability to cope. This short form of the
House et al. (1983) scale had previously been used successfully by
Saks (1995). Four items from the short version of the Mowday, Steers
and Porter (1979) Organizational Commitment Questionnaire were
used to measure organizational commitment. A five item scale
developed by Rizzo, House and Lirtzman (1970) was used to measure
job stress.
Finally, job satisfaction was measured initially using a 15 item scale

developed by Warr, Cook and Wall (1979). Although the reliability of
this scale had been found to be adequate in the past (e.g., British
Telecom, 1984), the results of the pilot test for the current study
found the scale to be multi-dimensional in the virtual organization
context. One subset of items broke into a dimension dealing with
satisfaction with management, while the other dimension appeared

to deal with issues about other aspects of the job (i.e., physical work
conditions, rate of pay, hours of work, variety in the job, and job
security). After further review, five items were used to measure the
satisfaction with management construct and five items were used to
measure the construct dealing with other job satisfaction factors.
The remaining eight constructs in the research model were measured

with scales developed for this study. The modeling best practices by
the manager construct was measured with 14 items. These items were
drawn from Staples (1996), in which key remote management best
practices such as using IT effectively to facilitate communication
were identified. The best practice items were further validated
through a series of structured interviews with remotely-managed
employees.
Three items were developed to measure the connectivity construct.

One item addressed remote-access capability and was created by
summing items which asked respondents about their ability to use
their e-mail, groupware, and telephone/voicemail systems remotely.
The second item was a sum of the responses to questions dealing with
respondents' use of various IT tools (i.e., laptops, desktop PC's,
modems, fax, cellular phones, and pagers). The third item assessed
respondents' access to voice mail, e-mail, groupware, and
videoconferencing systems, and was created by summing responses
to four questions which determined whether or not they had access to
each of the specific technologies/systems at their place of work.
The items for the IT Self-Efficacy construct assessed employees'

self-efficacy judgments of their ability to perform specific IT tasks.
The measurement of this construct was made up of four items each
representing one IT subscale. These subscales were comprised of
several questions dealing with specific tasks possible with each type
of IT (i.e., telephone/voice mail, e-mail, groupware and
videoconferencing). Respondents were first asked in each case if they
could do a specific activity using the relevant IT to help perform their
work or communicate with their manager. If they answered yes, they
were further instructed to rate, on a 1 to 9 scale, their confidence in
the judgment that they could do that task. If they answered no, the
answer was coded as zero; otherwise it was coded as the value of the
judgment (i.e., 1 to 9). This method of measuring self-efficacy was

found to have high validity in a study of different methods of
measuring self-efficacy by Lee and Bobko (1994).
Remote work self-efficacy relates to the employee's belief or

judgments that they can carry out tasks that are required to work
effectively in a remote environment. The focus groups, mentioned
earlier, consistently identified a number of tasks as being important
across a wide range of job categories (Staples, 1996). These were
relatively generic tasks that were independent of the employee's
specific job function. Sixteen items in the questionnaire were used to
assess the respondents' self-efficacy of performing these tasks. An
overall self-efficacy score was computed by summing these 16 items.
This is standard with self-efficacy measures (Lee & Bobko, 1994).
The last construct relates to performance. The general self-efficacy

model shown in Figure 1 indicates that previous performance
accomplishments act as inputs to an individual's self-efficacy
assessments, which in turn affect subsequent behavior and
performance. We did not attempt to measure the level of performance
of the various tasks that comprised the remote work self-efficacy
scale. This was because we felt it would be difficult to get accurate
self-assessments on actual levels of performance on the wide range
of tasks faced by remote employees. Instead, we measured the
respondents' beliefs about the effectiveness of working remotely in
general as well as their own overall perceived productivity. In this
way, we relied on previous research that has shown strong links
between self-efficacy judgments and the performance of tasks.
Although the self-reported measures of performance used here
might be viewed as potential inputs to self-efficacy, we believe they
are more correctly modeled as outcomes of the self-efficacy
assessment process. Specifically, the items used to measure the
overall productivity construct determined the individual's general
productivity, rather than remote work-specific productivity. Thus,
overall productivity cannot really be considered as an appropriate
input to remote work self-efficacy. The items used to measure
remote work effectiveness deal with the individual's general
perception of remote work effectiveness, but do not assess the
individual's own ability to perform remote work.
Analysis
A structural equation modeling technique called Partial Least Squares
(PLS) was chosen for analyzing the research model (Wold, 1985). PLS
is a technique that uses a combination of principal components
analysis, path analysis, and regression to simultaneously evaluate
theory and data (Pedhazur, 1982; Wold, 1985). The path coefficients
in a PLS structural model are standardized regression coefficients,
while the loadings can be interpreted as factor loadings. A detailed
discussion of the implementation of PLS in an information systems
context is provided by Barclay, Higgins and Thompson (1995), who
also compare PLS and LISREL. PLS is ideally suited to the early stages
of theory development and testing – as is the case here – and has
been used by a growing number of researchers from a variety of
disciplines (e.g., Birkinshaw, Morrison & Hulland 1995; Green,
Barclay & Ryans 1995; Higgins, Duxbury and Irving 1992).
The explanatory power of the model is tested by examining the size,

sign, and statistical significance of the path coefficients between
constructs in the model (Davies, 1994). The statistics for the paths
are generated using a jackknifing technique (Fornell & Barclay, 1983).
The predictive capacity of a PLS model can also be evaluated by
2
examining the variance explained (i.e., R ) in the dependent (or
endogenous) constructs. The objective of a PLS analysis is to explain
variance in the endogenous constructs, rather than to replicate the
observed covariance matrix, as is the case with covariance structure
techniques (such as LISREL). One consequence of using a variance-
minimization objective is the absence of overall fit statistics for PLS
models (Hulland, 1998).
Results
Given both the exploratory nature of the proposed research model

and the relatively large sample size, a decision was made to randomly
split the data into two subsets. The first of these subsets (n= 184) was
used to test the initial research model, as shown in Figure 2. Based on

what was learned from the estimation of this model, we identified a
refined model. We then used the second data subset (n= 185) to
validate this reduced model. The results of the initial model analysis
are presented first, starting with an assessment of the measurement
model (i.e., reliability and validity of the measures), and followed by a
formal test of the hypotheses. The results for the refined model are
then presented.
Measurement Model Assessment

Table 1 reports internal consistency values for each of the constructs
in the research model (using both a measure proposed by Fornell and
Larcker (1981) and Cronbach's alpha), and average variance extracted
(a measure used to assess discriminant validity). Table 2 presents the
inter-correlations of constructs. The diagonal element of Table 2 is
the square root of the average variance extracted. This table can be
used to assess the discriminant validity of the constructs.
Table 2 Discriminant Validity Analysis
Construct 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
1. RW Experience & Training 0.815
2. IT Experience & Training −0.053 0.704
3. Manager modeling 0.304 0.006 0.747
4. Computer Anxiety 0.003 −0.336 −0.024 0.890
5. Physical Conditions 0.053 −0.099 −0.040 0.042 0.917
6. Connectivity −0.112 0.791 0.004 −0.310 −0.038
7. IT Self-Efficacy −0.054 0.864 0.063 −0.374 −0.034
8. Remote work Self-Efficacy 0.188 0.262 0.423 −0.340 −0.078
9. Satisfaction w Management 0.274 −0.060 0.738 0.023 −0.102
10. Other Satisfaction 0.216 0.118 0.401 0.075 −0.188
11. Ability to Cope 0.051 −0.028 0.221 −0.206 −0.131
12. Remote Work Effectiveness 0.174 −0.074 0.297 −0.165 −0.198
13. Overall Productivity 0.095 −0.016 0.266 −0.017 −0.065
14. Org. Commitment 0.327 0.005 0.409 −0.046 −0.015
15. Job Stress −0.299 0.017 −0.304 0.135 0.249
The bold diagonal elements are the square root of the variance shared between
the constructs and their measures (i.e., the average variance extracted). Off
diagonal elements are the correlations between constructs. For discriminant
validity, the diagonal elements should be larger than any other corresponding row
or column entry.
With few exceptions, the constructs all had acceptable reliability and
validity. Two constructs (e.g., IT self-efficacy, and satisfaction with
other job factors) had somewhat lower Cronbach's alphas; however,
each of them had acceptable internal consistency values as assessed
using the Fornell and Larcker (1981) measure. The latter is calculated
independently of the number of items employed for a construct,
whereas alpha is not, and it thus provides a more robust assessment
of internal consistency. Furthermore, the Fornell and Larcker
approach (1981) uses the observed loadings, and therefore more
accurately reflects the relative importance of each of the underlying
measures. Thus, use of the Fornell and Larcker (1981) internal
consistency values is preferred, and it was concluded that all of the
constructs used here had acceptable internal consistency.
Remote work self-efficacy was a single item construct, so its internal

consistency and validity could not be directly assessed within the PLS
model. However, the Cronbach's alpha for the 16 items which were
used to construct the single score was 0.84, indicating strong internal
consistency. Also, the item did not load highly on any other construct
and the correlations with other constructs were generally low (Table
2), implying adequate discriminant validity.
An examination of Table 2 shows that the discriminant validity was

weak between IT experience and training, connectivity, and IT self-
efficacy. This can be seen by examining the correlations among the
three constructs and the square root of the average variance
extracted. In all cases, these correlations exceeded the average

variance extracted indicating weak discriminant validity. The
implications of this weak discriminant validity will be dealt with
more fully later, but its presence implies that all three constructs are
closely inter-related.
Three measurement items were retained despite having individual

loadings of less than 0.60. The first of these was an item dealing with
telephone self-efficacy (part of the set of measures for the IT self-
efficacy construct). Although the reliability of this item was rather
weak (0.53), it was retained in the model since this is a central
construct and the four items together displayed adequate internal
consistency (0.78). The two other problematic measures were both
related to the Satisfaction with Other Job Factors construct (i.e., two
items had loadings of 0.50 and 0.57, respectively). However, all five
items were retained in order to reflect the full range of job factors
typically used to assess job satisfaction (e.g., Locke, 1976).
Assessment of the Structural Model

Given our acceptance of an adequate measurement model in the
previous section, it is appropriate to now turn to an examination of
the structural model. This was done in two steps. The predictive
power of the model was assessed first, followed by an analysis of the
hypothesized relationships among the constructs.
The Predictive Power of the Model
The predictive power of the model is summarized in Table 3. The

model explained 35.5% of the variance in remote work self-efficacy
and 82.4% of the variance in IT self-efficacy. This latter result is
clearly an artifact of poor discriminant validity and will be dealt with
later. About 9.7% of the variance was explained in remote work
effectiveness construct, while 13.8% of the variance in overall
productivity was explained. The two constructs that dealt with job
satisfaction, satisfaction with management and satisfaction with
2
other job factors, had R values of 15.7% and 14.6%, respectively. The
variance explained in the ability to cope construct was 11.4%. Finally,
the model explained 13.6% of the variance in organizational
commitment and 12.8% of the variance in job stress. Overall, the
amount of variance explained by the initial model appeared

reasonable. For all of the outcome constructs, self-efficacy would be
one of many things affecting the respondents' attitudes and
2
behaviors, resulting in the relatively modest R values.
Table 3 The Predictive Power of the Model
2
Construct Name Variance Explained (R )
Remote Work Self-efficacy 35.5%
IT Self-efficacy 82.4%
Remote Work Effectiveness 9.7%
Overall Productivity 13.8%
Satisfaction with Management 15.7%
Satisfaction with Other Job Factors 14.6%
Ability to Cope 11.4%
Organizational Commitment 13.6%
Job Stress 12.8%
Hypothesis Testing
Figure 3 indicates both the variance explained for the individual

endogenous constructs and the estimated path coefficients, while
Table 4 contains a summary of the hypotheses, the path coefficients
obtained from the PLS analysis of the initial model, and the t-values
(and associated significance levels) for each path. For the antecedent
constructs in the model, the following paths were statistically
significant: remote work experience and training to remote work
self-efficacy (hypothesis 1); IT experience and training to IT self-
efficacy (hypothesis 2); modeling by the manager to both remote
work self-efficacy and IT self-efficacy (hypothesis 3); computer
anxiety to remote work self-efficacy and IT self-efficacy (hypothesis
4); connectivity to IT self-efficacy (hypothesis 6); and IT self-
efficacy to remote work self-efficacy (hypothesis 7). Three paths
were not significant: physical conditions to IT self-efficacy
(hypothesis 5), physical conditions to remote work self-efficacy

(hypothesis 5), and connectivity to remote work self-efficacy
(hypothesis 6).
Figure 3
2
The Research Model with Path Coefficients and R Values
Table 4 Summary of Path Coefficients and Significance Levels
Hypotheses and Corresponding Path(s)
H1: Remote Work Experience & Training positively impacts Self-Efficacy
. RW Exp. & Training → Remote Work Self-Efficacy
H2: IT Experience & Training positively impacts Self-Efficacy
. IT Exp. & Training → IT Self-Efficacy
H3: Modeling by Manager of effective remote management and remote work pract
. Modeling by Manager → Remote Work Self-Efficacy
. Modeling by Manager → IT Self-Efficacy
H4: Higher levels of computer anxiety will decrease self-efficacy.
. Computer Anxiety → Remote Work Self-Efficacy
. Computer Anxiety → IT Self-Efficacy
H5: Good physical working conditions will positively impact self-efficacy.
. Physical Conditions → Remote Work Self-Efficacy
. Physical Conditions → IT Self-Efficacy
H6: Greater levels of connectivity will positively impact self-efficacy perceptions
. Connectivity → Remote Work Self-Efficacy
. Connectivity → IT Self-Efficacy
H7: Greater levels of IT self-efficacy will positively impact remote work self-efficacy
. IT Self-Efficacy → Remote Work Self-Efficacy
H8: Higher self-efficacy will positively affect perceived employee performance
. Remote Work Self-Efficacy → Remote Work Effectiveness
. Remote Work Self-Efficacy →; Overall Productivity
H9: High self-efficacy will lead to increased job satisfaction
. Remote Work Self-Efficacy → Satisfaction with Management
. Remote Work Self-Efficacy → Satisfaction with Other Job Factors
H10: High levels of self-efficacy increase the ability to cope
. Remote Work Self-Efficacy → Ability to Cope
H11: Self-efficacy will positively impact organizational commitment
. Remote Work Self-Efficacy → Organizational Commitment
H12: Higher levels of self-efficacy will reduce job stress
. Remote Work Self-Efficacy → Job Stress
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001 (2 tailed test)
On the right-hand side of the model, the following paths were

significant: remote work self-efficacy to both remote work
effectiveness and overall productivity (hypothesis 8); remote work
self-efficacy to both satisfaction with management and satisfaction
with other job factors (hypothesis 9); remote work self-efficacy to
ability to cope (hypothesis 10); remote work self-efficacy to
organizational commitment (hypothesis 11); and remote work self-
efficacy to job stress (hypothesis 12). All of these paths were in the
directions hypothesized.
To summarize, fifteen of the eighteen estimated path coefficients in

the initial model were statistically significant in the predicted
direction, providing strong overall support for the proposed model.
However, hypothesis 5 (dealing with physical conditions) was not
supported at all, while hypothesis 6 was only partially supported.
Refined Model Results

Although the IT experience and training, connectivity, and IT self-
efficacy constructs are conceptually distinct, the initial research
model results indicated that they were highly inter-related at the
empirical level. Further examination of the three constructs'
measures suggested that all three could be viewed as indications of
the respondents' capabilities with IT. Thus, for the refined model we
decided to combine these three IT-related constructs into a single,
over-arching construct (IT Capabilities). The measures used for this
new construct were the same as those used in the prior analysis (i.e.,
13 items; internal consistency = 0.92; Cronbach's alpha = 0.81). In
addition, the Physical Conditions construct was dropped from the
refined model entirely, since the results from the initial model
indicated no support for the link between this construct and self-
efficacy. Figure 4 shows the simpler, refined model resulting from
these changes.
Figure 4
2
The Revised Research Model with Path Coefficients and R Values
The refined model was analyzed using the second data subset (n =
185), again using PLS. The explanatory power of the model was
2
reduced only slightly (i.e., the remote work self-efficacy R = 0.31
versus 0.36 previously), suggesting acceptable model stability across
the two data subsets. As can be seen by the path coefficients and
significance levels reported in Figure 4, all of the estimated path
coefficients in this simpler model were significant and in the
direction hypothesized, with two exceptions. Neither the path from
remote work self-efficacy to organizational commitment nor the
path from remote work self-efficacy to job stress were significant.
Discussion
In this section we discuss, in turn, the overall predictive power of the

model, the relationships between the antecedents of self-efficacy and
self-efficacy, and the relationships between self-efficacy and the
outcomes of self-efficacy. We conclude with a discussion of the
study's limitations, implications for theory and future research, and
implications for management practices.
Model Results
Predictive Power
The amount of variance explained in the remote work self-efficacy

construct was approximately 36 percent in the initial analysis and 31
percent in the refined model. These levels of explained variance
appear reasonable when compared with results from previous
studies. For example, Silver et al. (1995) reported that previous
experience explained roughly 30 to 35 percent of the variance in self-
efficacy in two studies they conducted.
In contrast, the amount of variance explained in the IT self-efficacy

construct in the initial model was considerably higher
(approximately 82%). However, this latter finding is likely the result
of the poor discriminant validity between the IT constructs, as
already described. When the paths from IT experience and training to
IT self-efficacy and from connectivity to IT self-efficacy were
dropped from the initial model to create a more restricted version,
2
the resulting IT self-efficacy R value was dramatically lower (0.16),
while the rest of the paths in this restricted model remained largely
unchanged. This provides further empirical evidence of discriminant
validity problems among the IT-related constructs, but also suggests
that the problem does not significantly affect the rest of the model.
Results from the refined model analysis also support this conclusion,
since most of the relationships changed little when the IT-related
constructs were merged into a single, over-arching IT capabilities

construct.
Antecedents of Self-Efficacy
The first six hypotheses addressed factors that could potentially

influence an individual's judgments of self-efficacy. Hypotheses 1 to
4 were based directly on self-efficacy theory. The hypothesis dealing
with the influence of previous experience and training on self-
efficacy (H1) was supported in both the initial and the refined model
analyses. This implies that employees with more experience and
training at working remotely will have higher levels of remote work
self-efficacy. This, in turn, will be positively related to performance
(H8), job attitudes (H9 and H11) and behaviors (H10 and H12).
In both analyses, support was found for the influence of modeling on

self-efficacy, as suggested by self-efficacy theory. The paths from
the modeling by manager construct to the remote work self-efficacy
construct and the IT self-efficacy construct (in the initial analysis)
were significant (hypothesis 3). These results suggest that modeling
activities by managers will be associated with higher levels of remote
work job task self-efficacy, which in turn leads to higher levels of
performance and more positive job attitudes. Many of the modeling
activities were related to the manager being an effective
communicator and will be discussed in more detail in the
implications for management practice section.
The paths from computer anxiety to remote work self-efficacy and

from computer anxiety to IT self-efficacy (hypothesis 4) were also
significant, supporting self-efficacy theory. To the extent that
computer anxiety provides a reliable indication of general IT related
anxiety, the findings here support suggestions in the literature that
having an ability to use information technology effectively (i.e.,
having lower levels of computer anxiety) is important in a remote
work setting. Consistent with this, in the initial analysis, the path
between IT self-efficacy and remote work self-efficacy was
significant (hypothesis 7), and connectivity was found to be
positively associated with IT self-efficacy (hypothesis 6). Analysis of
the refined model also indicated a significant relationship between IT
capabilities and remote work self-efficacy. Therefore, managers in
virtual organizations should view IT as a key enabler of remote work

management, indicating the importance of fulfilling their employees'
IT needs.
Although connectivity was not significantly related to remote work

self-efficacy, it would have an indirect effect on remote work self-
efficacy through its effect on IT self-efficacy. The absence of a
significant direct relationship may be the result of the way in which
connectivity was defined here. Fulk, Flanagin, Kalman, Monge and
Ryan (1996) suggest that there are two different types of
connectivity: physical and social. The definition (and set of measures)
of connectivity used in the current study dealt solely with the level of
physical connectivity available to the respondents. However,
individuals must also be willing and able to use such connectivity.
While the IT self-efficacy construct assessed individuals' abilities to
communicate, their willingness to do so was not measured here.
The expected influence of physical conditions, an environmental

variable in the initial model, on self-efficacy (hypothesis 5) was not
supported. Although non-significant, there was a positive
relationship between physical conditions and remote work self-
efficacy as hypothesized. Somewhat surprisingly, a negative (albeit
non-significant) relationship was also noted between physical
conditions and IT self-efficacy. This would be logical if IT was the
source of distractions (e.g., arrival of faxes, e-mail, etc.). If the
individual was very competent at using IT, and had correspondingly
high IT self-efficacy, the level of use of IT would be high which could
lead to more distractions.
Outcomes of Self-Efficacy
For all five of the outcome hypotheses, the paths leading from remote
work self-efficacy to the outcome constructs in the initial model
analysis were significant, substantive, and in the hypothesized
direction. The expected relationships between remote work self-
efficacy and the three behaviors examined in this study (i.e.,
performance, ability to cope, and stress) were all supported in the
initial analysis (hypotheses 8, 10, and 12). The significant links
between remote work self-efficacy and the two perceived
performance constructs, overall productivity and remote work
effectiveness, also demonstrate the critical importance of

understanding and managing the self-efficacy construct. These
findings are consistent with previous self-efficacy research which
has demonstrated strong links between self-efficacy beliefs and
performance (e.g., Gist & Mitchell, 1992). The positive relationship
that was found between self-efficacy and both ability to cope and
perceived stress is also consistent with previous self-efficacy studies.
The refined model analysis found similar support for the

relationships between remote work self-efficacy and the two
performance constructs and between remote work self-efficacy and
ability to cope. However, the path between remote work self-efficacy
and job stress was not significant in the refined model. Given the
results of previous studies demonstrating a significant relationship
between self-efficacy and stress and the results from the initial
model analysis in the current study, we suggest that this non-
significant finding may be specific to the data subset used to estimate
the refined model.
Self-efficacy theory does not specifically address the impact of self-

efficacy on attitudes. Two attitudes – job satisfaction and
organizational commitment – were included in this study as a
possible extension to self-efficacy theory. Self-efficacy was found to
have a significant and positive impact on job satisfaction in both sets
of analyses (hypothesis 9). However, the path from remote work self-
efficacy to organizational commitment was only significant in the
initial analysis (hypothesis 11). Overall, these results suggest that
self-efficacy can be used to predict some attitudes as well as
behaviors, at least in a remote work context.
We believe that the simpler, refined model (summarized in Figure 4)

captures the key relationships found in the initial analysis, and
maintains a similar level of predictive power while introducing
greater parsimony. However, we also suggest that future researchers
at least provisionally retain the organizational commitment and job
stress constructs as remote work self-efficacy outcomes, since the
evidence presented here is mixed. It seems premature to conclude
definitively that self-efficacy has no impact on either of these
outcomes.
Limitations and Implications for Future

Research
The study described here is the first of its kind to develop and test a
comprehensive model of remote management, using respondents
who are employed in remote work across a wide range of occupations
and geographical settings. Keen (1980) has suggested that it is better
to borrow from a reference discipline rather than to invent an entirely
new theory. Consequently, in developing our initial research model,
we drew heavily on self-efficacy theory.
Our results clearly demonstrate that self-efficacy theory does indeed

have substantial explanatory power in a remote management setting.
Of course, such findings ultimately need to be replicated across other
settings and over time before they can be fully accepted. For example,
the current study has a cross-industry, cross-occupational
perspective. Because the study does not control for the effects of
specific tasks and industries, it cannot investigate potential remote
work differences within a specific occupation or industry.
Consequently, it must be left to future research work to determine,
for example, whether substantial differences in remote work self-
efficacy exist between high technology and non-technology workers,
or whether remote work in the public and private sectors is
fundamentally different.
The current study relies heavily on individual employees' perceptions

collected through a large scale mail survey. One consequence of using
self-report data, particularly in the case of the outcome constructs, is
that such an approach likely introduces a common response bias
across constructs. This may partially explain the significant
relationships observed between self-efficacy and the various
outcomes studied. Although our empirical results suggest that these
constructs can be discriminated from one another empirically (e.g.,
see Table 2), we encourage the use of alternative methods of data
collection in future studies. For example, assessments of
performance and/or productivity could be obtained from

respondents' managers and/or co-workers, or from more objective
sources.
The current study adds to the external validity of self-efficacy theory

by showing its applicability in a new research domain. With the
exception of social persuasion, we were able to show that the sources
of self-efficacy information (see Figure 1) did impact self-efficacy
judgments, which in turn impacted perceived behavior. The model of
remote work self-efficacy described here also represents an
extension of existing self-efficacy theory in that it includes
attitudinal as well as behavioral constructs.
While self-efficacy theory offers significant promise for remote

management research, future researchers should consider competing
theories that may also be relevant in a virtual work context (e.g.,
agency theory). We chose self-efficacy theory at this early
exploratory stage of remote management research since we believed
that a theory addressing important remote management factors, as
identified by the literature, was desirable. However, future research
might compare the two theories in areas where they lead to different
predictions.
The cross-sectional nature of our survey design limits our ability to

draw causal inferences. Although such a design is useful for
identifying what set of relationships exist, it does not address why
they exist. Future research efforts (e.g., in-depth case studies) will be
needed to expand our current understanding of virtual work and its
management along these lines.
In this study, employees were defined to be remotely managed if they

worked in a different building than their manager, regardless of the
distance between the buildings. Clearly, other definitions of
remoteness could be used. For example, an alternative definition
could be based on the frequency of face-to-face contact that remote
employees have with their managers. Comparing the results obtained
using these different definitions of remoteness would enhance our
current limited understanding of remote work effectiveness.
Construct validity problems prevented us from including social

persuasion activities in either of our research models. We attempted
to measure social persuasion by the frequency of communication

between the manager and the respondent. This was clearly too
limiting a definition. Specific questions about social persuasion
activities that are linked more directly to the specific tasks examined
in the remote work self-efficacy construct could potentially improve
measurement of this construct.
In a similar vein, we were not able to reliably measure modeling

activities by people other than the respondent's manager,
minimizing the influences of co-workers and team members in our
models. The validity of this construct could be improved by
developing a more comprehensive list (perhaps via focus groups or
interviews) of modeling activities undertaken by co-workers and
team members that are potentially important to remote workers.
Implications for Management Practice
The results of this study suggest that for remote workers to be

effective, they need managers who are good communicators. The
remote managers must have good listening skills, and need to be able
to manage meetings and their employees’ time effectively. Being able
to use information technology effectively to aid communication is
also important, as is being available when the employees need
coaching or other forms of help. Effective remote managers also
support their employees' needs for information technology and
support team building and social activities.
All of the practices mentioned above can be learned. Therefore,

virtual organizations need to develop training courses and training
materials that help their remote managers both learn about and
implement effective remote management practices. The results of the
current study suggest that these investments in training can result in
higher levels of employee performance, job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, and ability to cope, as well as lower
levels of job stress.
The results of our study also indicate that remote work self-efficacy
is positively associated with both higher perceived levels of
performance and more positive work attitudes. Thus, training and
supporting employees so that they are better able to carry out those
tasks that were used to operationalize remote work self-efficacy will
benefit virtual organizations. These tasks generally dealt with the
employee's ability to set objectives, use time effectively, obtain
access to managers and co-workers, use information technology,
manage an office, and access information effectively. Actions by
virtual organizations that help develop these abilities in their remote
employees, as well as the employees' beliefs in their ability to carry
out these tasks, are likely to be beneficial in terms of increased
performance and positive work attitudes.
Work experience and training were also found to be positively related

to self-efficacy. This implies that employees with more experience at
being remotely managed will have higher levels of remote work self-
efficacy, which in turn will be positively related to performance and
job attitudes. Thus, attempts to increase the experience levels of
remotely-managed employees should also benefit virtual
organizations. For example, training employees in how to work
effectively remotely would reduce the amount of time required to
reach a certain experience level. Having experienced employees
mentor inexperienced people would be another way of achieving this
same goal.
Information technology appears to be a key enabler of remote

management and remote work. Therefore, virtual organizations need
to carefully consider and respond to their employees' IT needs, as
well as the needs of their remote managers. Furthermore, appropriate
computer training and on-going access to IT support/help staff
should be provided to reduce computer anxiety levels. Reducing
computer anxiety levels can be beneficial by leading to increased
levels of remote work self-efficacy, which in turn increases job
attitudes and behaviors.
Finally, the results of the current study can be used to assist

managers in identifying workers who are suited to working in a
virtual environment. The skills mentioned above could be
incorporated into a diagnostic assessment tool that could then be
used to identify individuals with characteristics and skills better
suited to effective remote work. By selecting and developing
employees for virtual work whom score highly on this diagnostic
tool, the organization could improve its longer-term probability of

success.
Conclusion
Virtual organizations are becoming an increasingly common

organizational design. The employees in a virtual organization often
work in locations remote from their manager. This remoteness
creates many management and communication challenges. In order
for organizations to adapt effectively to this new way of conducting
work, our understanding of the relevant issues and key drivers must
be increased. The current study helps to do this by using self-efficacy
theory to predict relationships between the antecedents to remote
work self-efficacy and the consequences of self-efficacy. These
relationships were tested by surveying a diverse set of employees who
worked remotely from their managers in a variety of virtual
organizations.
Overall, the results obtained here indicate that remote employees'

self-efficacy assessments play a critical role in influencing their
remote work performance as well as their attitudes towards both
remote work and their own organizations. Furthermore, strong
relationships were observed between employees' remote work self-
efficacy judgments and many of the antecedents included in the
study. Because many of these antecedents can be controlled to some
extent by managers, these findings suggest that it may be possible to
enhance employees' work performance through management efforts
to improve employees’ remote work self-efficacy. The current study
demonstrates the validity of self-efficacy theory in a virtual work
environment and also provides a basis for future research in the
virtual work area through its development and testing of a remote
management framework.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the insightful advice and

suggestions from the reviewers, editors and Peter Seddon of The
University of Melbourne, Australia. The second author would like to

thank the Barford family for its financial support and encouragement
of this work.
Footnotes
1 Attempts were made to measure and include the social persuasion

construct in our research model. However, these attempts were not
successful, and the social persuasion construct is consequently not
discussed further in this paper.
2 We originally attempted to include a construct dealing with co-workers'

modeling activities. However, this attempt was not successful, perhaps
because, as one reviewer suggested, the geographically dispersed working
relationships found in virtual organizations limit employees' opportunities
to observe such activities. Thus, the modeling by others construct is not
discussed further in this paper.
3 The questionnaire yeilded data that allowed us to identify remotely-

managed respondents. In this way, participating organizations did not have
to identify remotely-managed respondents specifically and we were also
able to gather data from locally-managed employees for purposes not
reported here.
Appendix
Appendix A: Questionnaire Items
Item Wording
Information technology Experience and Training
I am experienced at using my organization's e-mail system
I am experienced at using my organization's electronic collaborative (group

support) system
I am experienced at using my organization's videoconferencing system
I received adequate training to use my e-mail system
I received adequate training to use my organization's electronic collaborative

(group support) system
I received adequate training to use my organization's videoconferencing

system
Remote Work Experience and Training
I have been trained by my manager to work remotely
I am trained to work remotely from my manager
I have had some training on how to work remotely effectively
Modeling best practices by Manager
Runs meetings effectively (e.g., sets agendas, publishes minutes, designates a

chairperson)
Has good communication skills (e.g., a good listener, picks up on non-verbal

cues, asks for clarification when needed, and sets positive tone of discussion)
Asks for and listens to my ideas and solutions
Uses e-mail effectively to send information updates to the work group
Uses available information technology tools effectively
Uses and runs teleconference calls effectively (e.g., sets objectives & format,
encourages participation)
Encourages me to use available information technology tools effectively
Sets expectations about the frequency, method, and subjects of

communication between the two of us
Keeps an accessible schedule so that people know where to locate him/her
Communicates goals and sets priorities with me
Is available for consultation and advice
Supports and promotes social activities and team building activities
Supports my information technology needs with equipment, financial support

and training
Assesses my performance based on the results I achieve rather than how I spent
my time
Computer Anxiety
I feel apprehensive about using computers
It scares me to think that I could cause the computer to destroy a large amount
of information by hitting the wrong key
I hesitate to use a computer for fear of making mistakes that I cannot correct
Computers are somewhat intimidating to me
Item Wording
Physical Conditions
It is easy to get distracted in my primary office
It is noisy in my primary office
Items used to create the remote work self efficacy measure
To aid in performing my job, I could:
Set objectives that align with the organization's goals
Prioritize tasks to use my time effectively
Complete my daily priority tasks
Get a response from my manager for a request for advice or help within the
same day
Get a response from my manager for a request for advice or help within 2 to 3
days
Locate my manager and contact him/her immediately
Set objectives that align with my manager's goals
Know which of my co-workers to go to for specific information
Access appropriate support staff readily
Learn how to use a computer when I am provided with written instructional

material
Learn a new software package when I am provided with written instructional

material
Learn a new software package when an instructor is present to guide me
Use a fax machine to send documents
Organize my office equipment, desk and papers effectively
Set up a filing system to organize work documents
Access information needed to perform my job in an efficient manner
Satisfaction with management
The recognition you get for good work
Your immediate boss
Industrial relations between management and workers in your firm
The way you are managed
The attention paid to the suggestions you make
Satisfaction with other job factors
The physical work conditions
Your rate of pay
Your hours of work
The amount of variety in your job
Your job security
Item Wording
Ability to cope
I frequently don't know how to handle problems that occur in my job*
I often find that I cannot figure out what should be done to accomplish my
work*
I am frequently confused about what I have to do on my job*
I am frequently unsure about how to do my work*
Overall Productivity
I believe I am an effective employee
Among my work group, I would rate my performance in the top quarter
I am happy with the quality of my work output
I work very efficiently
I am a highly productive employee
My manager believes I am an efficient worker
Remote Work effectiveness
Working remotely is not a productive way to work*
It is difficult to do the job being remotely managed*
Working remotely is an efficient way to work
Working remotely is an effective way to work
Organizational Commitment
I find that my values and the organization's are similar
I am proud to tell others that I am part of this organization
My organization really inspires the very best in me in the way of job

performance
For me, this is the best of all possible organizations for which to work
Job Stress
I work under a great deal of tension
I have felt fidgety or nervous as a result of my job
If I had a different job, my health would probably improve
Problems associated with my job have kept me awake at night
I often “take my job home with me” in the sense that I think about it when
doing other things
29 *after the item label designates reverse coding.
References
Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating non-response bias in mail

surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3), 396–402.
Google Scholar Crossref
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.

Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.
Google Scholar Crossref PubMed
Bandura, A. (1978). Reflections on self-efficacy. Advances in Behavioral Research

and Therapy, 1(4), 237–269.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American

Psychologist, 37(2), 122–147.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Google Scholar
Bandura, A. (1988). Reflection on nonability determinants of competence. In

R. J. Sternberg and J. Kolligian, Jr., (Eds.), Competence considered: Perceptions of
competence and incompetence across the lifespan (pp. 315–362). Dordrecht,
Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Google Scholar
Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1986). Differential engagement of self-reactive

mechanisms governing the motivational effects of goal systems. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38(1), 92–113.
Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and

intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 41(3), 586–598.
Barclay, D., Higgins, C., & Thompson, R. (1995). The partial least squares (PLS)
approach to causal modeling: Personal computer adoption and use as an
illustration. Technology Studies, 2(2), 285–309.
Google Scholar
Barling, J., & Beattie, R. (1983). Self-efficacy beliefs and sales performance. Journal
of Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 5(1), 41–51.
Birkinshaw, J., Morrison, A., & Hulland, J. (1995). Structural and competitive
determinants of a global integration strategy. Strategic Management Journal,
16(8), 637–655.
British Telecom (1984). Survey item bank. Bradford, West Yorkshire: England: MCB
University Press.
Google Scholar
Brown Jr., I., & Inouyne, D. K. (1978). Learned helplessness through modeling: The
role of perceived similarity in competence. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 36(8), 900–908.
Compeau, D. R. (1992). Individual reactions to computing technology: A social

cognitive theory perspective. Unpublished doctoral thesis, The University of
Western Ontario.
Davies, T. F. (1994). Predicting application software usage: A longitudinal study.

Unpublished doctoral thesis, The University of Western Ontario.
DeSanctis, G. (1984). Attitudes toward telecommuting: Implications for work-at-

home programs. Information & Management, 7(3), 133–139.
Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New
York: Wiley.
Google Scholar
Donaldson, B. (1990). Sales management: Theory and practice. London: MacMillan

Education Ltd.
Google Scholar
Duxbury, L., & Haines, G.Jr. (1991). Predicting alternative work arrangements from
salient attitudes: A study of decision makers in the public sector. Journal of
Business Research, 23(1), 83–97.
Duxbury, L. E., Higgins, C. A., & Irving, R. H. (1987). Attitudes of managers and
employees to telecommuting. Infor, 25(3), 273–285.
Google Scholar
Fornell, C., & Barclay, D. W. (1983). Jackknifing: A Supplement to Lohmoller's LVPLS

Program. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Graduate School of Business Administration, The
University of Michigan.
Google Scholar
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18,
39–50.
Frayne, C.A., & Latham, G. P. (1987). Application of social learning theory to

employee self-management of attendance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(3),
387–392.
Freedman, D. H. (1993). Quick change artists. CIO, 6(18), 32–28.

Google Scholar
Fulk, J., Flanagin, A. J., Kalman, M. E., Monge, P., & Ryan, T. (1996). Connective and
communal public goods in interactive communication systems. Communication
Theory, 6(1), 60–87.
Gerber, B. (1995). Virtual teams. Training, 32(4), 36–40.

Google Scholar
Gist, M. E. (1989). The influence of training method on self-efficacy and idea

generation among managers. Personnel Psychology, 42(4), 787–805.
Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its

determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17(2), 183–211.
Google Scholar
Gist, M. E., Schwoerer, C., & Rosen, B. (1989). Effects of alternative training
methods on self-efficacy and performance in computer software training. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 74(6), 884–891.
Green, D. H., Barclay, D. W. and Ryans, A. B. (1995). Entry strategy and long-Term
performance: Conceptualization and empirical examination. Journal of Marketing,
59(4), 1–16.
Greengard, S. (1994). Making the virtual office a reality. Personnel Journal,

September, 66–79.
Google Scholar
Handy, C. (1995). Trust and the virtual organization. Harvard Business Review (May-
June), 40–50.
Google Scholar
Hartman, F., & Guss, C. (1996). Virtual teams–constrained by technology or culture.

Proceedings of IEMC 96. Managing virtual enterprises: A convergence of
communications, computing and energy technologies (pp. 645–650). Vancouver,
BC, Canada: IEEE.
Heinssen Jr., R. K., Glass, C. R., & Knight, L. A. (1987). Assessing computer anxiety:
Development and validation of the computer anxiety rating scale. Computers in
Human Behaviour, 3(1), 49–59.
Higgins C., Duxbury, L., & Irving, R. (1992). Work-family conflict in the dual-career
family. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 51(1), 51–75.
Hill, T., Smith, N. D., & Mann, M. F. (1987). Role of efficacy expectations in predicting
the decision to use advanced technologies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(2),
307–314.
House, R. J., Schuler, R. S., & Levanoni, E. (1983). Role conflict and ambiguity
scales: Reality or artifacts Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(2), 334–337.
Hulland, J. S. (1998). Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management

research: A review of four recent studies. Strategic Management Journal, in press.
Google Scholar
Huws, U. (1990). New technology homeworkers. Employment Gazette (UK).

Google Scholar
Illingworth, M. M. (1994). Virtual managers. InformationWeek (June 13), 42–58.

Google Scholar
Keen, P. G. W. (1980). MIS research: Reference discipline and a cumulative tradition.

Proceedings of the First International Conference on Information Systems
(December), 9–18.
Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1994). Self-efficacy beliefs: Comparison of five measures.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(3), 364–369.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Larkin, K. C. (1987). Comparison of three theoretically
derived variables in predicting career and academic behavior: Self-efficacy,
interest congruence, and consequence thinking. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
34(3), 293–298.
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette,

(Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297–1349). New
York: John Wiley & Sons.
Google Scholar
Locke, E. A. (1991). The motivation sequence, the motivation hub, and the
motivation core. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2),
288–299.
Lucas Jr., H. C. (1996, December). The IT-based virtual organization. Panel

presented at the International Conference on Information Systems, Cleveland,
Ohio.
Lucas Jr., H. C., & Baroudi, J. (1994). The role of information technology in
organization design. Journal of Management Information Systems, 10(4), 9–23.

Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter L. W. (1979). The measurement of

organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224–247.
Mowshowitz, A. (1994). Virtual organizations: A vision of management in the

information age. The Information Society, 10(4), 267–288.
Pedhazur, E. J. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research. New York: Holt,

Rinehart and Winston.
Google Scholar
Phelps, N. (1985). Mountain Bell: Program for managers. In Office Workstations in

the Home. Washington, DC: National Research Council, National Academy Press.
Google Scholar
Risman, B. J., & Tomaskovic-Devey, D. (1989). The social construction of

technology: Microcomputers and the organization of work. Business Horizons,
32(3), 71–75.
Rizzo, J., House, R., & Lirtzman, S. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex
organizations. Administrative Sciences Quarterly, 15(2), 150–163.
Roderick, J. C., & Jelley, H. M. (1991). Managerial perceptions of telecommuting in

two large metropolitan cities. Southwest Journal of Business & Economics, 8(1), 35–
41.
Google Scholar
Saks, A. M. (1995). Longitudinal field investigation of the moderating and

mediating effects of self-efficacy on the relationship between training and
newcomer adjustment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(2), 211–225.
Google Scholar Crossref PubMed
Schunk, D. H. (1981). Modeling and attributional effects on children's achievement:

A self-efficacy analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(1), 93–105.
Silver, W. S., Mitchell, T. R., & Gist, M. E. (1995). Responses to successful and
unsuccessful performance: The moderating effect of self-efficacy on the
relationship between performance and attributions. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 62(3), 286–299.
Stanton, W. J., & Buskirk, R. H. (1987). Management of the sales force. Homewood,
Illinois: Irwin.
Google Scholar
Staples, D. S. (1996). An investigation of some key information technology-enabled

remote management and remote work issues. Conference Proceedings of the
Australasian Conference on Information Systems. University of Tasmania, Hobart.
Staples, D. S. (1997). The management of remote workers: An information

technology perspective. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Western
Ontario, London, Canada.
Stumpf, S. A., Brief, A. P., & Hartman, K. (1987). Self-efficacy expectations and
coping with career-related events. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31(2), 91–108.
Taylor, M. S., Locke, E. A., Lee, C., & Gist, M. E. (1984). Type A behavior and faculty
research productivity: What are the mechanisms Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 34(3), 402–418.
Warr, P., Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1979). Scales for the measurement of some work
attitudes and aspects of psychological well-being. Journal of Occupational
Behavior, 52(2), 129–148.
Google Scholar
Weinberg, R. S., Gould, D., & Jackson, A. (1979). Expectations and performance: An
empirical test of Bandura's self-efficacy theory. Journal of Sport Psychology, 1(4),
320–331.
Google Scholar
Wold, H. (1985). Systems analysis by partial least squares. In P. Nijkamp, L. Leitner,

and N. Wrigley, (Eds.), Measuring the unmeasurable (pp. 221–251). Dordrecht:
Marinus Nijhoff.
Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational

management. Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 361–384.
Google Scholar
© 1998 International Communication Association

A Self-E Cacy Theory Explanation For The Management of Remote Workers in Virtual Organizations

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

A Self-E Cacy Theory Explanation For The Management of Remote Workers in Virtual Organizations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

15/06/2021 Self-Efficacy Theory Explanation for the Management of Remote Workers in Virtual Organizations | Journal of Computer-Mediated Com…

A Self-Efficacy Theory Explanation for the

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Volume 3, Issue 4, 1 June

Information technology is enabling new organizational structures

The topic, however, is critical and needs to be researched. As a

To address this need, a model of remote work self-efficacy was

efficacy is the judgment an individual makes about his or her ability

Self-efficacy has been used as the theoretical framework because it

The roles played by these drivers, and their individual impacts on

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Self-efficacy

Self-efficacy theory is an important component of Bandura's (1986)

Self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1977) suggests that there are four

Bandura (1982) reviewed a variety of different lines of self-efficacy

including: changes in coping behavior produced by different modes of

Self-efficacy has been shown to apply across a wide range of

The theory appears to be particularly well suited to studying virtual

The Research Model and Hypotheses

A research model (see Figure 2) was developed which integrates self-

Mowshowitz, 1994; Stanton & Buskirk, 1987; Staples, 1996). To

The Research Model

However, before turning to this more detailed discussion, several

remote work self-efficacy were considered. Previous research by

IT self-efficacy was modeled here as an antecedent to remote work

The hypotheses associated with each path of the research model,

Experience and training: Past experience and training provide

Hypothesis 1: More experience and training in working remotely

Information Technology Experience: Since information technology is

Hypothesis 2: The greater one's experience and training with

Modeling: Use of effective remote management/working practices by

Hypothesis 3: The more an employee's manager utilizes effective

Anxiety: According to self-efficacy theory, information obtained

towards all forms of IT, it does appear to capture a large component

Hypothesis 4: The higher the employee's computer anxiety level,

Environmental Factors: The last source of self-efficacy information

Hypothesis 5: Positive physical working conditions will be

The second environmental factor included in the model was level of

Hypothesis 6: The greater the level of connectivity provided to an

The ability to use IT represents an important component in an

Hypothesis 7: Higher levels of information-technology self-

Five outcome variables were included in the research model, as

Performance: Previous studies have found that self-efficacy is linked

Hypothesis 8: High levels of employee self-efficacy on remote

Job Satisfaction: In his summary of previous research, Locke (1976)

an impact on individuals' perceptions of job satisfaction. These

Hypothesis 9: High levels of employee remote work self-efficacy

Ability to Cope: Previous research has found significant relationships

Hypothesis 10: High levels of employee remote work self-efficacy

Organizational Commitment: Staples (1996) found that feelings of

Hypothesis 11: High levels of remote work self-efficacy in an

Job Stress: Previous research has demonstrated a significant

Hypothesis 12: High levels of employee remote work self-efficacy

A quantitative research design was chosen to examine the proposed

In the current study, workers were defined as remote or non-remote

A total of 376 of the returned questionnaires were from remotely-

In order to achieve acceptable levels of measurement reliability and

Appendix A contains a list of the items used to measure the

Table 1 Internal Consistency of the Constructs

Construct Number of Items Internal Consistency

Remote Work Experience & Training 3 .85

IT Experience and Training 6 .85

Modeling best practices by Manager 14 .95

Computer Anxiety 4 .94

Physical Conditions 2 .92