Going Home: The Influence of Workforce Performance Management Systems on the

Decision to Engage in Remote Work Environments

Kenneth E. Jones, Jr.

Submitted to the faculty of the Falls School of Business

in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree

Doctor of Business Administration

Anderson University
Anderson, IN

December 2011
 UMI Number: 3500905

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

UMT
Dissertation Publishing

UMI 3500905
Copyright 2012 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
 Accepted by the DBA Program faculty, Falls School of Business, Anderson University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
Doctor of Business Administration

Doctoral
Committee

Date of Final Oral Examination: December 6tn, 2011

n
 ©(2011)
Kenneth E. Jones, Jr.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

m
 Dedication

This project is dedicated to many over this seven-year process. I dedicate this

work to my Lord, who always delivered just what I needed in His time, though I often did

not understand. This dedication is shared with my parents—the memory of my mother

who read to me and taught me the love of learning, always; and to my father who showed

me that age was no barrier to fulfilling your academic dreams. This dedication is shared

with my children with whom I have shared my—burning determination to keep getting

up after every fall, willing humility to change in the form of growth, and unyielding

commitment to seek the Kingdom first. This dedication is shared with my grandchildren

who have loved Grandpa, anyway, though he seemed so distant in thought. Finally, this

project is dedicated to Darla, my wife, my fellow sojourner, and the toughest little

woman God ever made. I will never deserve any of you!

IV
 Acknowledgements

I acknowledge my Heavenly Father who was always listening to my cries for help

and answered in the most amazing way. Imagine what you can do with me, now!

I acknowledge my parents who made sure I finished my high school education,

though it was no guarantee anything would come of it. You taught me to do the best I

could.

I acknowledge my wife, Darla, who did not attempt to understand this process,

but made sure I could finish this milestone. Your unselfishness and acceptance have had

the greatest impact on my life. Our prayers every morning were the turning point of this

successful effort.

I acknowledge my children and grandchildren whose images in my mind, late in

the night, kept me going. Please, know that this trail was blazed for you to follow.

Please, evaluate your choices accordingly.

I acknowledge my preparatory teachers who told me I could do anything I

dreamed with an education—Mrs. Mahoney (Latin), Mr. Elkins (Geography), Mr. Jones

(History), Coach Moore, and Mrs. Purdy (Art).

I acknowledge my Undergraduate professors who encouraged me to use my head

and follow my heart— Mr. Alfred Lee (Hermeneutics), Dr. King Buchanan (Homiletics),

Mr. Darin Doubrava (Computer Science), Dr. Carolyn Holdsworth (World Literature),

and Dr. Odene Forsythe (Mathematics).

I acknowledge my Dissertation Chair and Director of the DBA program at

Anderson University—Dr. Doyle Lucas, and my Committee—Dr. Sharon Johnson and

Dr. James Phillips, who worked with me giving advice and encouragement. You showed

me the unselfishness of Scholarship from hearts of Christ-like service.

I acknowledge my colleagues at Northeastern State University, who kept

reminding me that my decades of industry service was but an introduction to the

academic life of service to the field of Information Systems, Marketing, Management,

and Supply-Chain/Logistics—Dr. Jim Phillips, Dr. Michael Landry, Dean Penny Dotson,

Dr. Michael Turner, and Dr. Gene Kozlowski (Mentor and Friend).

I acknowledge Ms. Linda Summers who patiently read the original manuscript

(much larger than the final draft) and kindly called for "transition", which was the nicest

way of saying that a major cut or revision was needed. It was like helping the blind to

see. I hope to repay this favor when you tackle the doctoral process.

vi
 Abstract

Kenneth E. Jones, Jr.

Going Home: The Influence of Workforce Performance Management Systems on the

Decision to Engage in Remote Work Environments

Since 1975, the advance of home-based or remote work has been predicted and

encouraged (Nilles). Remote work entails the ability of workers to function as

productively from distant locations as those workers in face-to-face office environments:

e.g. secondary offices, co-workplace offices, mobile workstations, and home. This study

will look at the literature concerning remote employment where early estimates suggested

30-50% of Americans would be working by the beginning of the 21 st Century (Toffler,

1980). Surveys of top executives, though positive in outlook, would lead one to predict

just over 13% of the population to be involved in remote work practices on a regular

basis by the end of the last century (Daniels, Lamond and Standen, 2001). This study

will note the historical evolution of work and managing the processes of work as it

started at home and returns. The positive and negative forces, contained in the literature,

that drive or diminish home-based/remote work will be examined. The corporate and

individual elements will be relayed. The eight elements of successful remote work will

be acquired from the literature. Then, this paper will consider a technological tool

(Workforce Performance Management Systems—WPMS) designed to provide a

trust/control system providing the eight elements of successful remote work. The eight

elements will be surveyed in the current workplace of the sample population.

Information concerning the availability of WPMS solutions will be provided and the

vii
population will be surveyed for the impact on remote work engagement determined based

on the ability WPMS solution to enhance remote work engagement. Finally, a suggestion

for a research approach to suggest possible reasons for the failure of regular remote work

to thrive will be offered.

Doyl£X^/ucas, Ph.D.

Doctoral

Committee Sharon Johnson, Ph.br—^

vm
 Table of Contents

Dedication iv

Acknowledgements v

Abstract vii

Table of Contents ix

List of Figures, Illustrations, Tables, Reports xii

Chapter One: Introduction to the Problem 1

Prediction versus Movement to Remote Work 2

Why Not Now?: Current Relevance of Remote Work 13

Problem Statement 19

Significance of the Problem 20

Overview of the Methodology 21

Delimitations of the Study 22

Definitions 22

Organization of the Dissertation 26

Chapter Two: Background and Literature Study 28

Review of Theoretical and Empirical Literature 28

Conceptual Foundations in Management Related to Remote Work 43

Impact of Trust/Control in Remote Work 50

Impact of Technology and the Evolution of Trust at Work 55

Will Workforce Performance Management Solutions Encourage the

Engagement of Remote Work? 58

Summary of Previous Research and How It Relates 59

ix
Chapter Three: Research Methodology 61

Pedagogical Approach 61

Subject or Participants 63

Instruments and Materials Used 69

Procedures Followed 74

Data Analysis 77

Limitations and Key Assumptions of the Methodology 90

Summary Statement of the Methodology 92

Chapter Four: Data Analysis 93

Division of Hypothesis Test Into Eight Elements 94

Element Analysis 95

Interpretation of Findings 120

Chapter Five: Summary of Results and Conclusion 128

Restating the Problem 128

Review of the Methodology 129

Summary of the Results 130

Discussion of Results 131

Relationships of Current Study to Previous Research. 133

Recommendations for Practitioners 139

Suggestions for Additional Research 141

Conclusion 145

References 146

Appendix A: Survey Respondent Analysis 162

x
Appendix B: Survey Instrument and Link 167

XI
 List of Figures, Illustrations, Tables, Reports

Illustration 2.1 Changing Motives of Remote Work 36

Table 2.1 Societal Changes in Work and Trust 56

Table 3.1 Breakdown of Sample Population Demographics 67

Table 3.2 Original Research Instrument 69

Table 3.3 New Logical Order of the Eight Elements of Successful Remote Work... 72

Table 3.4 Distribution Skewness and Kurtosis for QlTl Through Q8T8 78

Illustration 3.1 Scatter Plots of Skewed Distribution Q2T2 79

Report 3.1 Original Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) Test of Q2T2 81

Illustration 3.2 Histogram of Squared Data Q2 83

Illustration 3.3 Histogram of Squared Data T2 84

Report 3.2 KS Test of Squared Data Q2T2 84

Illustration 3.4 Histogram of Cubed Data Q2 86

Illustration 3.5 Histogram of Cubed Data T2 86

Report 3.3 KS Test of Cubed Data T2Q2 87

Table 3.5 Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test Example QlTl 89

Table 4.1 Likert Scale of Pre/Post Survey 95

Table 4.2 Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test QlTl 97

Table 4.3 Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test Q2T2 102

Table 4.4 Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test Q3T3 105

Table 4.5 Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test Q4T4 107

Table 4.6 Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test Q5T5 110

Table 4.7 Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test Q6T6 113

xii
Table 4.8 Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test Q7T7 116

Table 4.9 Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test Q8T8 118

Table 4.10 Signs Test for Q8T8 120

Table 4.11 Means Scores 122

Table 4.12 Ranks Test Report QlTl Through Q8T8 124

Table 4.13 Results of Hypothesis Test on Eight Elements of Successful

Remote Work 125

Table 5.1 Barriers to Remote Work 133

Table 5.2 Structural Issues of Remote Work Not Explained by the

Elements or Affected by WPMS 136

xm
 Chapter 1: Introduction to the Problem

Alvin Toffler wrote in his cult classic The Third Wave:

"Until now the human race has undergone two great waves of
change, each one largely obliterating earlier cultures or civiliz-
ations and replacing them with ways of life inconceivable to
those who came before. The First Wave of change—the agricult-
ural revolution—took thousands of years to play itself out. The
Second Wave—the rise of the industrial civilization—took a mere
three hundred years. Today history is even more accelerative, and
it is likely that the Third Wave will sweep across history and comp-
lete itself in a few decades." (1980;10)

This research investigates the United States' business environment that spent nearly three

hundred years leaving home-based employment only to return to it with the advent of

open telecommunications and global competition. The agrarian/mercantile work

environment was often maintained at the owner's personal property (homes/shops). The

21 st Century "going home" process of leaving the office to work, represents more

freedom of workers to work from almost anywhere. It reflects a different type of worker.

This current home-based work is one form of the many types of remote work. Daniel

Pink describes the move away from the jobs of the Industrial Revolution, whether

freelancing or working from somewhere other than the office, as a state of mind as much

as a change of place (Pink, 2001). He describes those that remain in jobs do so "under

terms closer in spirit to free agency than traditional employment" (Pink, 2001 ;11). In

essence he is announcing the death of The Organization Man, a term and a non-fiction

work made famous by William J. Whyte, Jr., in 1956 (Pink, 2001). Pink develops the

organization man as a theoretical person who relies on the firm for employment,

meaning, and time management (2001). The death of the need or reliance on the

1
organization, at least, as a supplier of a place to work weighs heavy on the interest in

remote work, freelance and employment.

This change in the freelance character of remote and non-remote work is

happening through decentralization, but the pace is far behind the expectations of the

early predictors of the remote work potential (Toffler, 1980; Nilles, 1975; Miles, 1994).

Others predicted issues that the futurists failed to consider concerning the information

technology and in the management of remote employees, e.g. costs, economic

constraints, trust, or work-life balance (Westfall 1997b; Westfall, 1998; Staples, et all,

1998; Staples, 1998; Jeffrey-Hill, E., et al, 2008; Major, D., et al, 2008; McNall, L., et al,

2010). All of these current variables stand above and beyond the scope of those who

imagined telecommuting and electronic cottages over 30 years ago. The time is

theoretically right for work to "go home." The environmental pressures are increasing;

powerful technology is in place; systems solutions are readily available; yet remote work

adoption is lagging. Perhaps, it is not a technological issue.

Prediction versus Movement to Remote Work

The American worker is returning home. Some actual examples might be helpful

to envision the delayed adoption of remote work environments. JetBlue Airways Corp.

maintains 100% of its reservation agency workers at home-based computer terminals.

David Neeleman, CEO, notes that before going 100% with "homesourcing" a comparison

was made of the traditional office environment and the homesourced reservation agent.

Neeleman determined the homesourced employee to be 30% more productive, which was

2
attributed to being happier working from home (Friedman, 2005). With the off shoring

of so much work, Neeleman's viewpoint is pertinent. When the Los Angeles Times

reported on the success of JetBlue, it quoted Neeleman as relating the company's refusal

to outsource to India. He stated, "Somehow they think that people need to be sitting in

front of them or some boss they have designated. The productivity we get here more than

makes up for the India [wage] factor" (Friedman, 2005;135). The presence-based

performance concept purported by many American workplaces could be an issue that

delays the implementation of remote work. This concept focuses on the reasoning that if

my employees are at the office and clocked, they must be working. As will be developed

on the second chapter, successful remote work (as well as in-office assignments) requires

the input of workers, community feedback and motivation processes, and defined rules of

acceptable performance.

JetBlue's move from a 20,000 square foot call center to home-based

reservationists was responsible for a 15% improvement in productivity (Wynbrandt,

2004). Another example of productivity as a motivation for a distributed work

environment is Best Buy's corporate offices, which allows employees the flexibility to

select their own hours while focusing on results (Jossi, 2007). Productivity is a proven

reason to apply remote work environments to, even, large corporations.

Another reason for the move to remote work environments is financial savings.

Some examples of financial impact of successful telecommuting might be helpful.

Grantham, Ware, and Williamson record that many have predicted the financial savings

by reducing the Corporate Real Estate (CRE) footprint, when firms require smaller/more

efficient office environments due to smaller office-bound workforces (2007). In some

3
cases, this real estate efficiency concept is taking the form of making multiple "open

offices" available to employees who are traveling between corporate locations or using

mobile solutions to keep workers tied to the information needed. Capital One is cited as

an example of this mobile work application (Pomeroy, 2007).

Sun-Microsystems is a massive example of remote work implementation. As a promoter

of remote work as a cost-effective behavior, Sun Microsystems's conducted a multi-year

study of its "Open Work" program, initiated to make workers productive while

diminishing travel expense (Rohrer, 2008). Some questioned the economic impact, and

their call for research focused on the profitable application of remote workers on a daily

basis. In other words, which employee would be the most profitable to assign work out

of the office as much as possible? Economic advantages were postulated and referenced

to the pay scale of the remote worker by Ralph Westfall—e.g. management personnel

working remotely would have the greatest impact on maintaining lower office expenses

than would clerical personnel (1998). Westfall posits that the more employee/manager

earns the more it costs to maintain their work in the office. Thus, the high paid

manager's remote impact would be the more profound with the least amount of time out

of the office. A clerical employee would have to work out of office nearly constantly to

have near the potential impact (Westfall, 1998).

Some growth in the movement to remote work was experienced before the 21 st

Century began. In 1997, 11.6 million employees of U.S. companies worked from home

at least part of the time, though some estimated that figure to be more than 14 million

(Pink, 2001). In 2004, the number increased to 23.5 million or about 16% of the

American labor force. Another survey by the International Telework Association and

4
Council noted that the number of remote employees who worked at least one day per

month from home doubled during the period from 1997 to 2003 (Home-Based

Employees, 2004). Current research implies a decrease in regular remote work of

employees. Most recently, the Dieringer Research Group, Inc. found that more people

were teleworking at least once per month, but fewer were assigned remotely on a daily

basis (Telework Trends 2009). This report also cited a decrease in remote contract labor

and an increase in employees working remotely, suggesting more companies are offering

their employees some type of remote work opportunities (Telework Trends 2009).

Dieringer (2009) also noted remote employment is increasingly taking place at home, at

the client's place of business, on mass transportation mediums—e.g. trains, planes, and

subways, and at telework centers.

Toffler predicted this "electronic cottage" industry would come within thirty years

of his 1980 publication due to the development and perfection of the information

technology that has permeated our society during the last thirty years. He sensed the

natural return to the "hearth" at home where history tells us the world worker spent

10,000 years of service versus only 300 years at the factory or office. Prior to 1980, he

interviewed companies like Western Electric, Hewlett-Packard, and Ortho

Pharmaceutical which felt that the technology would soon be available that would allow

35-75% of their collective work forces to stay home and be productive (Toffler, 1980). It

is now beyond the period of Toffler's prediction window. 1980-2010, and the United

States is barely touching the low end of his "electronic cottage" adoption rate. The

technology capacity, on the other hand, has far surpassed Toffler's prediction with the

popularity of the Internet.

5
 Interest grew as fuel prices arose early in the last decade, yet full-time remote

work has declined. Why has there been a reduction in deployment of daily remote work?

The technology and environmental values have more than availed the apparent capacity

and need for change. In this section, the author seeks to establish the history of change

from home-based industry to industrial-factory employment, then back home during the

Information Age. The demand is there. The capability is there. The Internet has

contributed to the paradigmic shift to knowledge sharing and access, providing a

disruptive innovation. Internet-based communication offers industry the technology to

create, store, and share the knowledge of the firm without geographic boundaries. The

capacity to manage via the technological solutions will be evaluated, as Workforce

Performance Management Systems (WPMS) will be applied to the eight key elements to

successful remote work: Input, Evaluation, Communication, Consistency, Defined Rules,

Support/Succession, Feedback/Motivation, Control System (Thomas, 2007; Grantham &

Ware, 2007). It should be noted that these eight elements are integral components of the

WPMS solution, and this reality should enhance the growth of remote work possibilities

("Getting There", 2005). If these possibilities are enhanced, then the willingness to

participate and promote remote work should be on the increase. It is this author's

observation from the literature, that the technological tools are available, but the software

does not create the organizational environment conducive to remote work. When these

tools are explained, and their availability determined, the interest in remote work will not

be enhanced, because the agency relationship needed between manager and employee

cannot be maintained with the current "presence-based" productivity common in office

environments, today.

6
Home-Based/Remote Work: A Historical Perspective from the Literature

The forces that kept work at home and in small shops for centuries were not

related to wage or institutionalization, and these forces were prevalent in the two

centuries preceding the Industrial work environment. Pfeffer noted that the difference

between the two centuries that took work out of the hands of "free men" who rejected

dependence on wages, and who were directly involved in physically producing every

product, was drastic (1994).

Industrial Work Environment (1860 - 1960)

The majority of the work that shifted during the Industrial Revolution—from the

farm and small merchant to the large factory environment—had five drivers or forms of

motivation cited by Wren (2005). First, the manufacturing-based processes were

complex and sometimes large. The storage of unfinished product and inventory required

a much greater space than one's personal dwelling, as was common in the guild or

mercantile production counterpart. This largess of the industrial era moved the

manufacturing processes to on-site production facilities, such as factories. Second, these

manufacturing processes were labor-intensive and many workers were involved in the

process. This required a greater management initiative than anything before it, save the

large farm operation. Third, management skills were required in dealing with the largely

unskilled work force. Fourth, the demand and communication with the market were

several degrees removed from the worker. Finally, a very tangible product was produced.

This product was finished in many cases when it left the manufacturing facility. The

7
farm produced many raw materials for non-consumer needs and required processing

before the consumer would buy it. This especially became more relevant when products

could be stored for long-term use at the factory level—canning and boxing (Wren, 2005).

Because of the magnitude of the large manufacturing plant processes and constant

demand for U.S. exports, the need for the art and skill of management was developing. A

bureaucratic scope was essential for management success. The works of Weber and

Fayol espoused the need and the logic of administrative principles of management (Wren,

1993).

Many of these manufacturing facilities were behemoths and the economy of scale

was immense. The development of numerous technological innovations was vital to the

U.S. success at this time. The steam engine, a source of cheap power, may have had the

greatest single impact of any invention of the day (Wren, 1993). This technology drove

the ability to operate large manufacturing facilities.

Business owners of large manufacturing plants at this time often were overseers

who sought the help of skilled managers and/management consultants to assist them in

maintaining control over a predominantly unskilled work force. These authoritarian

entrepreneurs were bombarded with more than any one person could direct. Many times

management and ownership could not maintain training, leaving workers to develop their

own processes for their production assignment (Kanigel, 2005).

Three primary management issues that surfaced as the Industrial Revolution

unfolded were recruitment, training, and motivation (Wren, 2005). These issues were not

new to work, but the scale of need was. First was the issue of recruitment—How to hire

and retain the best people? The competition for quality workers was intense. This daily

8
labor requirement led to competitive actions to acquire the best workers. Ford proved

that labor was very sensitive to wage inducements. At the insistence of James Couzens,

Operations Manager, Ford changed the attitude of business forever with the $5/day wage.

The impact of the $5/day wage was tremendous, bringing Ford much disrespect from his

peers, but workers were so proud they wore their Ford factory pins with great pride after

they left work for all to see and hear that "I am a Ford man" (Brinkley, 2003).

The second issue management faced was training. Early in the Industrial Age

most workers were left to decide their own best way to do their job. This created such

variability in production quality, demonstrated the need of training, because of the lack of

control in the industrial workplace. Two very different approaches impacted the

workforce, as it still does today. First, Henry Ford decided to bring the technology to the

worker. Ford determined to allow the building process to come to the worker. While the

worker focused on the few key functions assigned them in the "assembly line" process,

parts were delivered to their location on the line. The second approach to the training

issue faced by businesses during the Industrial revolution was Scientific Management, a

technique promoted by Frank and Lillian Gilbreth and Frederick Taylor. The focus of

scientific management was to organize the steps of the assigned task, evaluate the time

needed to perform the task, and determine the "one best way" to train all employees in

the correct procedure (Kanigel, 2005). This use of metrics to properly evaluate the

worker's performance of the past will be discussed and contrasted to the future

management of office employees as they return to home-based employment.

The third issue facing labor during the Industrial Age is motivation. The three

methods made popular during this time were positive inducement (consider Ford's $5

9
day), negative sanctions (in the form of job loss), and building of factory ethos (religious

fervor was common at the turn of the 20l Century—compared to TQM and Teams of

today). These methods are still in use and effective today.

Information Age Work Environment (1960 - Present)

Information has always driven the successful work environment. During the

information evolution, organizations began to connect each action or function of the firm

to the impact that reaction had on the activities of its customers and partners. This

"systematic approach" has required and found the acquisition and amount of information

to be cost effective and abundant (O'Brien, 2005). Since the 1950s, with the advent of

the mainframe computer in engineering settings, the information available in the

workplace has shifted to every stakeholder in the organization. By the seventies,

managers were finding computer-generated reports accessible and beneficial to analysis

of transactions and market trends. By the 1990s, the executive level of management was

using the personal computer to create projections and to help guide decision-making

processes (O'Brien, 2005).

Today, the organization is interconnected as an "enterprise" within the

geographical boundaries of the office (intranet) and the information is shared

simultaneously with exchange partners (suppliers and outsourced support) via the

extranet (O'Brien, 2005). The firm is no longer viewed as a group of independent islands

competing internally for information among departments of the organization; instead,

10
they share the same information (creating and managing knowledge) seamlessly as their

individual duties require (Drucker, 1974).

With the extranet concept, geographic proximity is not a barrier. With the advent

of the Internet connecting anyone, anywhere, a computer of any kind becomes a

workstation (Laudon & Laudon, 2006). Businesses can connect with customers online

with a totally new product offering or with customers who are totally new to the same

product the firm has marketed for years, creating what Porter termed a competitive

advantage (O'Brien, 2005). This is not just a connection of customers and service

providers, but the firm is connecting to a new market of employees in a "flat" world

(Friedman, 2005).

With a flat world, as Friedman (2005) noted, the economy of scale is

based on the product or function of the firm versus the company. In other words, the

product may be produced by one firm, marketed by another firm, researched and

developed by another firm, and owned by a firm based in a country miles away

(multinational) or a firm which has no international geographic headquarters—

transnational (Laudon & Laudon, 2006).

In this information age the worker and owners are becoming one and the same.

The size of the organization may be determined by the size of the team working on a

project. The location of the job may be as temporary as the team on the jobsite. The

construction company, an information technology project team, and the Hollywood

production industry share this common characteristic (Malone, 2004). Each puts together

the people needed to produce the desired result and once the movie production is

11
complete, the team disappears. This "e-lance" company was considered 25% of the U.S.

workforce in 2003 (Malone, 2004).

Though the growth of freelancing is formidable, the large corporation is still a

"dominating force" as it secures even more strategic business alliances (Magretta, 1999).

Yet, the ratio of Fortune 500 firms as employers, which was one in five in 1974, has

fallen to less than one in ten in 1999. Incidentally, the largest private employer in 1997

was not GM or IBM, it was Manpower Incorporated—a temporary employment provider

(Magretta, 1999).

So what type of workers and businesses will thrive in this evolutionary phase?

If one can envision the business organization as the mechanism of coordination which

exists to "guide the flow of work, materials, ideas, money", then the form taken by the

business is strongly affected by the "coordination of the technologies" available and

could conceivably be a "business of one" (Magretta, 1999). In this technologically robust

environment, the speed of processing information for decision support could be more

important than manufacturing production rates.

This processing of information requires the skill of a new labor force—the

knowledge worker. Peter Drucker has made the term "knowledge worker" more popular

over the last thirty years, though he ascribed the origination of the term to Fritz Machlup,

who used it first in 1960 (Drucker, 2002). Drucker defined this "knowledge worker" as

one, who with access to the necessary corporate information (knowledge), should be self-

motivated, self-sufficient, and agile (Magretta, 1999). The self-motivation is essential as

the individual must meet the goals demanded by the project, and Drucker describes this

person as taking individual responsibility, managing his/her career, and not depending on

12
any company (1977). He goes on to say that "the stepladder is gone, and there's not even

the implied structure of an industry's rope ladder.. .it's more like vines and you have to

bring your own machete" (Magretta, 1999). Existing companies have had to adjust. New

business models are evolving, making the demand for this new worker more apparent.

Toffler suggested that the success of the company during this Third Wave of the

information evolution will need workers who are accountable, "quick on their feet," and

able to see strategically—how their work "dovetails" with the work of the team (1980).

The knowledge organization that arises to confront this business landscape can

open many employment opportunities for individuals and teams. Peter Drucker describes

the knowledge organization as having two axes: function and team (Magretta, 1999).

The knowledge worker's function is dependent on management to provide the advanced

knowledge needed to perform. The team will allow the knowledge worker to contribute

in a cross-functional setting.

Management of this workforce will also require a reevaluation of the work

performed and how productivity is measured. The interaction with the team and support

from management are vital components of the successful knowledge-worker environment

(Drucker, 1974). Few companies have fathomed the "totality of the worker and

working,"—the totality of the task and job, perception and personality, work community,

and rewards and power relations (Drucker, 1974).

Why Not Now? Current Relevance of Remote Work

This section will reveal that the United States, though lagging in implementation

of its own technological creations (aided by slow-moving Federal regulation) has all of

13
the needed technology available. This use of the telecommunications skills and hardware

is global in scale, with Asia gaining speed of use of the latest contributions in mobile

applications. The following pages will answer some of the questions as to what basic

technology and management solutions are needed to successfully deploy remote work,

and pose some reasons why remote work has failed to meet predicted rates of success. In

this section the eight elements of successful remote (Communication/Technology,

Trust/Control System , Consistency, Input, Rules Defined, Evaluation,

Feedback/Motivation, and Succession/Support) will become more apparent to the reader.

These elements relate to success in the knowledge worker environment and suggest the

need for a software solution that addresses these eight elements.

Technological Infrastructure in Place

Ralph Westfall saw the future demand for home-based business or

telecommuting, and he has studied this demand, from the systems perspective, only to

find that the savings to work remotely failed to appear in research (1997). His pre-2001

study, though, did not seem to allow for the exponential growth of the Internet, drastic

fuel-price increases, IT prices steadily dropping, Trans-Atlantic fiber-optic cable

infrastructure, and offshore outsourcing creating such disparity in profitability among

companies which do outsource from those that do not (Friedman, 2005, Westfall, 1997).

The characteristics, then, of this current employment environment include a Virtual

Private Network (VPN) remotely connecting knowledge workers to their team via the

Internet, increasingly high fuel prices, and demand for end of time wasted in driving to

14
the office (Hunton, J. & C. Norman, 2010; Laudon and Laudon, 2006; Olszewski, P. & P.

Mokhtarian,1994). This would seem to be the perfect incubator in which remote work

would thrive.

With the decentralized business model available through remote office

connections, the remote employee is fully integrated into the function and flow of the

traditional office, perhaps improving productivity if remote work is consistently

evaluated (Cetron, M. & Davies, O., 2010). Company-wide expectations need not be

sacrificed because of remote employment; instead, productivity of the firm could be

enhanced by implementing the technology available for remote work, providing distance-

managed employees the necessary accountability for their productivity (Gibson et al,

2002; Handy, 1995; Riley & McCloskey, 1997; Solomon, 2000; Stanko & Matchette,

1994).

The Productivity Problem

All of the skill and knowledge of the information-age worker is apparent in the

work of the effective remote employee. This productive remote employee must be

skilled at the knowledge-work assigned and the company procedures needed to meet the

demands of the task. The worker is flexible in function and focused on productivity. The

employee has the entrepreneurial attitude and seeks to improve directly the company

goals through the work assigned, which requires knowledge of the information pipeline

of the corporation. The effective remote worker should also be bold in expecting to be

compensated lucratively based on superior, tangible productivity (Wardell, 1998).

Assuming the remote employee is not contracted or self-employed, the role of

management is in directing the flow of work by monitoring the remote operation and

15
holding the worker accountable for productivity goals. The failure and fear of many

remote projects is that the employee/employer will not be consistent in providing

feedback and/or meeting productivity targets. Westfall notes that the more freedom and

support that management provides to the employee, the more training should be assigned,

and the more often the work should be evaluated to verify and assess the understanding

and progress of the training (1997). He notes that the traditional and remote employee

should be evaluated equally, as lack of feedback and potential for unfair evaluation in the

control process can lead to a lack of trust in an effective control system. The value of

trusting a control system is vital to those that leave the office to work remotely. This

group needs to know they and their work are effective and valuable. The reason many

companies fail to adopt the home-based/remote employee concept is that management

lacks determination to meet the employee's need of training and the company's need for

assessment and consistent evaluation (Westfall, 1997).

The current difficulty in regular remote work stagnation is not a logistical or

technological problem. It is a management issue. Effective management leverages the

reality of McGregor who touted the Theory Y—not as a hands-off management style, but

a role of managers to facilitate and support—with the control and measurement of

Taylor's Scientific Management. Scientific Management was not intended as a system of

micromanagement as much as it was the manager's knowledge of what work the

employee was expected to do and how to do it best (Heil, et al, 2000). The

manager/owner cannot create the most effective compensation without the awareness of

the employee's impact on the process—employee feedback (Davenport & Pearlson,

1998; Staples, 2001b).

16
Advantages of Information Evolution and Decentralization

The goal of many remote employees is to offer more support and time to the

demand of their nuclear family. Toffler suggested that the "electronic cottage" of the

Third Wave is synergistic in that it offers the parent more time at home, and that the

parent at work is a sight the child seldom sees. Vocational training and the willingness

and capability of the child to help around the house are possible benefits (Toffler, 1980).

At least four infrastructure elements must be in place for this decentralization to

occur. First, all of the IT tools necessary to allow the remote employee access to the

business tools needed to meet and exceed expectations must be provided (Staples, 2001b;

Staples, Hulland, and Higgins, 1998; Staples, 1996). Second, the employee must be

contributing to the growth of the firm and he/she must be facilitated in reaching his/her

highest potential (Solomon, 2000; Stanko & Matchette, 1994). If the only work that can

be relocated out of the office is mundane and wasteful, the employee becomes

unproductive, expensive, and could be determined as of little value to the firm. This only

serves to make the employee expendable, and this concern is cited often as a reason to

avoid remote work environments (Baruch, 2001; Baruch & Nicholson, 1997; Bresnahan,

1998; Chapman et al, 1995). Third, accountability measurements (feedback and control

systems) must be consistently contrasted to the employee's performance (Gibson et al,

2002; Handy, 1995; Riley & McCloskey, 1997). Finally, creative productivity-based

compensation is essential (Wardell, 1998).

In essence, the eight elements of successful remote work are

Communication/Technology, Trust/Control System, Consistency, Input, Rules Defined,

Evaluation, Feedback/Motivation, and Succession/Support. These elements found in

17
productive remote and non-remote work environments provide the level of employee

participation and management interaction for worker satisfaction and competitive

alignment to thrive.

Global Connectivity, Tech-Ready Workers, and the Entrepreneurial Mindset

The same elements required for remote employment's sustainability in the U.S. is

becoming standard around the world. Access and accountability are of no consequence

without the connectivity to support it. So, how does the remote work potential in the U.S.

compare with the rest of the world? In a word: "Behind." One need only look at the

developing connectivity of Japan to confirm this. Thomas Bleha reports that the Japanese

government has directly affected the connectivity of the nation by offering tax incentives

to connect even the most remote potential workers. In fact, the U.S. is the only

developed industrialized nation that has not promoted such a national policy of

networking its population ((2005). In fact, Americans have only been given a 25MHz

band (providing enhanced speed and information variety over the same communication

media) via new FCC rules in May of 2010 (Gross, 2010). This level of bandwidth has

been available in Asia since 2003 (Bleha, 2005).

Evolutionary Missing Links

China avoided the deployment of landline underground telephone cable and went

directly to Wi-Fi capability. This literally saved the country hundreds of billions of

18
dollars in unnecessary infrastructure necessary to remote work (Gilder, 2000). Missing

this evolutionary link leads one to speculate if the Asian population will take as long to

adjust to the knowledge-worker global society as Americans. In other words, the Asian

worker might be more entrepreneurial (as Drucker referred to the characteristics of

knowledge-workers) when exposed to the impact of the broadband connectivity available

to billions in their countries (Drucker, 1995; Drucker, 2002). They could adjust to the

remote-work environment more readily as the broadband infrastructure is brought to their

doorstep, another advantage for global work competition (Gilder, 2000).

Problem Statement

As noted above, in remote work environments, without temporal/tactile contact, a

lack of systematic performance controls between management and employee represents a

perceived obstacle to engagement in remote work solutions and to the potential economic

and ecological savings they represent. In essence, remote work fails to increase in daily

application due to management's inability to adjust to new workplace capability/demands

and management's perception of presence-based management in a traditional office.

Because of the significance of both successful remote work environments containing the

eight elements (Input, Evaluation, Communication, Consistency, Defined Rules,

Support/Succession, Feedback/Motivation, Trust/Control System) and Workforce

Performance Management Systems (WPMS) solutions having been created to provide the

eight elements of successful remote work; it is expected that when knowledge of WPMS

is made available to those considering remote work environments, a statistically

19
significant difference in the interest to engage in remote work will be incurred. Thus, by

providing information about WPMS in the context of working from remote locations,

interest levels will change after such education occurs. Available software tools will not

supersede the cultural awareness and systematic expectations, appreciated or maintained,

throughout the organization—within and without remote work environments.

Management will support remote work, thus employees will not fear reprisal in remote

work applications.

Putting this problem in the form of a hypothesis we would suggest a null

hypothesis that declares there would be no statistically significant difference (no

relationship) in the mean of the sample populations if surveyed before and after the

knowledge of WPMS is made available. The alternative hypothesis would reflect that the

survey after the awareness of WPMS will reflect a significant increase in the willingness

to engage in remote work. All eight of the elements of successful remote work

(Communication/Technology, Trust/Control System , Consistency, Input, Rules Defined,

Evaluation, Feedback/Motivation, and Succession/Support) could be tested by the sample

population with expectation of the same results.

Significance of the Problem

The conceptual structure of management helps to explain the significance of this

problem. This study will note the unique combination of agency theory to relate the need

for managing remote work, corporate culture offering a perspective on corporate

readiness and the situational leadership needed in a remote work environment, and

20
contingency theory to analyze the impact of innovation which remote work requires and

brings to the organization that successfully implements it.

Overview of Methodology

The research process contained in this document seeks to survey the current

propensity of the participant to engage in remote work, in relation to their current work

environment; then, instruct the participant in the use of Workforce Performance

Management Systems (WPMS) in the educational element. The key ingredient of the

sample population is to bring knowledge of each participant's individual workplace. The

focus will be the impact of a brief introduction to the WPMS solution and have the

participant consider the ability of WPMS to enhance their willingness to engage in

remote work—based on their unique knowledge of their workplace. The participant will

then relate the association of the WPMS solution to the world of work as they know it.

The difference between the mean score for the pre-education survey and the post-

education survey will provide evidence that WPMS solutions positively influence interest

in remote work, or not. Since the eight elements of successful remote work

(Communication/Technology, Trust/Control System , Consistency, Input, Rules Defined,

Evaluation, Feedback/Motivation, and Succession/Support) are the subject of the survey,

and the WPMS software contains a means of employing these eight elements in the

workplace. A significant change in the mean survey responses from the pre to post

education element should be an indication that something other than these eight elements

is involved with the commitment to engage in remote work. Suggested items other than

21
the eight elements will be discussed in chapter five. In addition, the demographic data

may contain correlations to the participant's interest in remote work environments.

Delimitations of Study

It should be noted that this study does not intend to determine what the

cause/causes of the slow adoption of telework environment might be, but it could assist in

answering some unique questions and in leading to others. For instance, it should clarify

what the relevance of the WPMS solution is to the participant having to make the remote-

work decision. It may intensify the effort to create a better communication system for

remote and non-remote work systems. Successful workplaces might seek to apply

solutions that enhance interest in more self-governed work environments to replace the

lack of such solutions where presence is being substituted for productivity in

performance.

Definitions

Remote Work/Home-Based Work

The term refers to working from outside the office of the overseeing manager.

This could be part-time or full-time. This study is not looking to measure the practice of

individual contractors who are self-employed or working for multiple clients. This study

will seek to evaluate the remote work performed by employees of a specific firm. There

are many terms referring to this form (and related forms of work) used in research:

22
Telework, telecommuting, virtual work, flexible work, remote work, distance work,

mobile work, hotelling, distributed work, etc. (Nilles, 1975; Ware and Grantham, 2007).

Ware and Grantham (2007) also categorize the places where this remote work can take

place: Co-workplace (company-owned remote office environments), home of employee,

vehicle, hotel rooms, etc.

Feedback

In a systematic management environment feedback is output from the processing

stage that is returned to appropriate members of the organization to help them evaluate or

correct the input stage (Laudon and Laudon, 2006). Aguinis (2007) relates the needs to

maintain feedback or open communication between management and employees and

suggests the following are key to the most effective feedback systems: timely, frequent,

specific, verifiable, consistent, private, consequential, descriptive, evaluative, related to

an agreed performance continuum, based on patterns of performance, can build

confidence in employees, and should be used as a tool for generating advice from

management. Bacal (1999) suggests a popular tool for bi-directional feedback, called

360-degree feedback, as it provides both management and employees to evaluate each

other and likely encourages both parties to work together toward goals by which to

evaluate one another.

Control

23
 Formal controls include the establishment of codes of conduct, documentation of

expected procedures and practices, and monitoring and preventing behavior that varies

from the established guidelines (McLeod and Schell, 2007). Control can be future based

as in performance planning, or past behavior can be measured and compared as in

performance evaluations (Cummings,1983). The key to effective control measures is that

such measures require validation by both parties operating within the control

environment (Aguinis, 2007).

Trust

Though the movement to remote work is growing, the potential has not been

achieved if one compares recent statistics cited above with the expectations of the early

theorists. One reason the remote work environment has been hindered is a reported lack

of trust of employees for management and management for employees, which might be

resolved with a system of feedback and control of performance goals and regular

evaluations of work in any environment (Harrington and Ruppel, 1999). Managers fail to

support or implement remote work environments because of the fear that employees will

not work or will take advantage of the freedom from lack of tactile/temporal supervision

and work around personal agendas (Westfall, 1997b; Grantham and Ware, 2007).

Employees who would thrive in the remote work environment choose not to go offsite for

fear of being isolated and overlooked for promotion or a chance to do challenging and

productive work (Baruch & Nicholson, 1997; Chen & Nath, 2005; Handy, 1995; Ruppel

& Harrington, 1997). This failure to implement such remote work opportunities and the

24
changes it would render have contributed to the failure to reach the original

implementation levels once suggested by Toffler (1980) and Nilles (1975).

This work will key on the process of communication that will allow the two

parties (employees and management) to establish effective performance measurements

and contractual follow through (Reina & Reina, 2006). This would require the

feedback/control system that will allow trust whether between the two parties or between

the two parties and the control system (Cummings,1983; Savage, 1983; Mayer, Davis,

and Schoorman, 1995). Reina (2006) is concerned that the traditional contractual trust

between two parties will actually be superseded by a control system, which becomes the

object of both parties trust. Francis Fukuyama (1995) described this social environment

as "low-trust,"since little trust is involved between individuals.

With the prosperity of workers and management to trust in a control system, this

study is most concerned with the performance measurement system provided within the

work environment and how it is perceived to enhance the willingness to engage in remote

work. Whether that system is in the form of a software product or accepted program

maintained (manually) by the firm's management with its employees, the impact of this

system of controlled feedback, communication, and evaluation might have a positive

impact on a workforce braving the remote work option.

Performance Management

Performance Management is defined as the "continuous process of indentifying,

measuring, and developing the performance of individuals and teams and aligning

performance with the strategic goals of the organization" (Aguinis, 2007). Performance

25
management must be ongoing since it involves the never-ending process of setting goals,

then observing performance. These observations are then compared to organizational

objectives, and the workforce receives ongoing coaching and training as feedback. In

one sense, workforce performance management directly links employee performance

organizational goals. How this is communicated with the employee can determine the

feeling of partnership and teamwork they really have with the company.

Workforce Performance Management

The term workforce performance management has come to indicate an overall

management activity aligning work with the firm's goals, and Josh Bersin (2007)

suggests that many of the key ingredients to this daily activity make up some of the top

items on which talent management must focus. It is suggested that the seven activities of

coaching, aligning and establishing goals, development planning, assessing performance,

compensation/performance alignment, and competencies assessment make up the top

50% of a successful talent manager's optimal time (Bersin, 2007). This would indicate

workforce management activities are vital to the success of talent management, and it

will be noted in the next major section of this chapter that these activities relate well to

successful remote work implementation.

Organization of the Dissertation

This chapter has developed the historical expectation of telecommuting/remote

work, work's current place in history, and perceived elements and obstacles to successful

26
remote work. Chapter 2 will develop the characteristics of successful remote as defined

in the literature. The synchronization of the elements and obstacles to remote work and

the introduction of Workforce Performance Management Systems (WPMS), designed to

enhance communication in the knowledge worker organization, will be compared and

applied. If properly implemented WPMS might fit the growing capacity and lagging

deployment of remote work in American business environments.

27
 Chapter 2: Background and Literature Study

This chapter focuses on the existing literature of remote work and develops the

elements of the successful remote work environment. It will differentiate between the

company and its leadership as an entity, noting what positive and negative behaviors and

cultural attributes aid or diminish telework operations. As the company/leadership model

is developed, the individual employee model is also developed. Remote workers have

certain attributes if they are to succeed in an environment where the eight elements—

Communication/Technology, Trust/Control System , Consistency, Input, Rules Defined,

Evaluation, Feedback/Motivation, and Succession/Support—exist. Finally, the issue of

trust/control is related to the remote environment. The relationship of trust/control to

remote work requires it to have a unique and additional development in this work, though

it is treated as one of the eight elements of remote work success. This is because

clarification is needed to relate the most common meaning of trust in the workplace and

how this is affected by the technological solutions and information-driven (knowledge

worker) workplace.

Review of the Theoretical and Empirical Literature

Concepts of Remote Work

Considering remote work as a special form of the general concept of work

requires and investigation of the motivations and drawbacks to the implementation of

remote work. Remote work entails the ability of workers to function as productively

from distant locations as those workers in face-to-face office environments: e.g.

28
secondary offices, co-workplace offices, mobile workstations, and home—as it relates to

employers and employees. The motivations are changing; information about successful

and failed remote work implementations are abundant, yet the number of individuals

engaged in remote work has not met early expectations. The eight elements of the

successful telework workplace (Communication/Technology, Trust/Control System,

Consistency, Input, Rules Defined, Evaluation, Feedback/Motivation, and

Succession/Support) are expressed through relationships, and the literature is clear as to

what works at work, whether remote or non-remote. The use of workforce performance

management systems, which are becoming some of the most sought after software

solutions, could affect remote work positively (Thomas, 2007). WPMS offers systematic

access to the eight elements of success remote applications, theoretically, but the

adoption of remote work to mainstream is lacking. Perhaps, awareness of WPMS

applications would provide the boost remote work needs.

Motivations and Drawbacks to Remote Work

With the claims that remote work offers a significant savings in energy, time, real

estate costs, and/or employee turnover to those that implement such processes, the

interest in working away from the office has received much attention in the last thirty

years (Westfall, 1998; Grantham, Williamson, and Ware, 2007, Mokhtarian, 1991). This

section of the paper will review some of the reported positive and negative results

anticipated and/or experienced by remote work applications. Organizational and

individual perspectives will be analyzed, and this analysis will include the characteristics

of successful remote work assignments and the employee types most likely to succeed.

29
Organizational Motivations

Depending on the management philosophy and the relationship the firm has with

its employees—remote or non-remote—there seems to be at least six positive attractions

to remote work. The positive attractions to remote work are explained but not listed in

any order of magnitude of impact.

First, the utilization of remote work offers the organization lower absenteeism

rates among employees. Employees are less likely to avoid work if given the opportunity

to work remotely or from home (Duxbury & Higgins, 1995; Fitzer, 1997; Greengard,

1995; Moskowitz, 1995; Nilles, 1994; Wilkes, Frolick, & Urwiler, 1994; Hoang et al,

2008). Second, the ability to attract and/or retain employees who might otherwise be

unavailable to relocate is a strong motivation to allow work from home (Baig, 1995;

Davenport & Pearlson, 1998; Froggatt, 1998; Moskowitz, 1995; Piskurich, 1996; Ruppel

& Harrington, 1995; Hoang et al, 2008, McNall et al, 2010). Third, this ability to retain

and acquire otherwise lost employment is credited to increasing employee loyalty to the

firm (Caudron, 1992; Moskowitz, 1995; Hunton & Norman, 2010). Fourth, the

organization should expect increased productivity and quality of work (Baruch &

Nicholson, 1997; Duxbury & Higgins, 1995; Huws, 1993; Weiss, 1994; Westfall, 1997b;

Xenakis, 1997; McNall, et al, 2010; Hoang et al, 2008; Major et al, 2008). Though

Westfall (1998) offers more discrete criteria for actual productivity gains, Huws (in an

earlier study) reported that managers rated their teleworking employees as 47% more

productive (Pinsonneault & Boisvert, 2001). Five, decreased operational expenses in the

30
normal office environment can be a plus to the firm implementing remote work (Apgar,

1998; Christensen, 1992; Davenport & Pearlson, 1998; Kirkley, 1994; Nilles, 1994,

Westfall, 1998). Westfall related the savings to the positive correlation of

employee/manager salary and number of days working remotely. He hypothesizes that

the higher the rate-of-pay the greater the savings to the firm for that employee/manager to

stay at home or work remotely. This is attributed to the office support rendered to

higher-paid personnel (Westfall, 1998). Six, the organization should see a positive

increase in the ability to respond more quickly to customers and/or unexpected events

(Eldib & Minoli, 1995; Fitzer, 1997; Korzeniowski, 1997; Nilles, 1994). This issue has

also been related to the flexibility of the organization to respond or keep operations going

when faced with non-business events and, more currently, security issues (Daniels et al,

2001; Lamond et al, 1997; Ruppel & Harrington, 1995). The aftermath of "9/11" has

forced many organizations, including the Federal Government, to consider the

implementation of telework for maintaining operations during a terrorist event (Porter,

2006).

Individual Motivations

The individual motivations to engage in remote work are also valuable in

understanding the effects of this growing form of work in firms. Three positive

motivations are noted here. First, the reduction of commuting costs to the office could

represent a rather large savings to the teleworking employee (Baruch & Nicholson, 1997;

Christensen, 1992; Moskowitz, 1995; Nilles, 1994). Moskowitz offers a table of the

commute savings of 90-minute (one-way) commuting for full-time remote workers could

add 15 hours per week to the remote worker's life or work schedule. This could be prime

31
time hours for reaching customers. One study by American Express Travel Services-

reports that home-based reservation agents handle 26% more calls per day or 46% more

business per week than conventional office agents with strong experience (Moskowitz,

1995). Second, closely related to the previous reasoning is the increase in flexibility in

work hours (Moskowitz, 1995; Reinsch, 1997). Reinsch reports on a survey that noted

the most important motivator for individuals to choose to engage in remote work was the

greater freedom and control in their personal schedule. Third, the increased productivity,

for several reasons, was cited as making remote work more appealing (Baruch &

Nicholson, 1997; Duxbury & Higgins, 1995; Huws, 1993; Moskowitz, 1995; Reisch,

1997). Nortel reported that 73% of its telecommuting employees reported less stress and

90% reported greater job satisfaction (McCune, 1998).

Drawbacks to Remote Work

While there are positive reports of the organizations and individuals that telework,

the negative results or expectations are also noteworthy. Most of these items relate to

organizational culture and existing practices—the concern of losing current processes or

methods.

Organizational Drawbacks

Three organizational impacts of remote work may appear negative to those

considering participation. One, having some of the best employees unavailable in the

office environment can be negative in that more time may be involved in reaching those

remote workers (Johnson, 1997). Fitzer (1997) also suggests that this loss of input or

32
availability can cost the organization synergistic capability otherwise available to all

conventional office staff. Two, there is some concern for data security when basing

employees out of the office and allowing them to move information via

telecommunication technology across the Internet (Gray, Hodsen & Gordon, 1994;

Messmer, 2006). Three, managing remote workers creates added cost and time

constraints to the organization (Bailey & Kurland, 2002; Christensen, 1992; Fitzer, 1997;

Nilles, 1994; Hoang et al, 2008; Westfall, 1998). Westfall strongly encourages more

research into the reality of this economic cost, and he encourages the promoters of

telecommuting to evaluate the real cost to management when presenting findings

(Westfall, 1997b). This final negative impact creates some difficulty in evaluating the

financial benefits of remote work (Daniels et al, 2001; Kondra & Hinings, 1998; Kurland

& Bailey, 1999; Lamond et al, 1997). Modeling and economic analysis of transportation

and office duplication savings are considered by others too difficult to determine

(Mokhtarian & Solomon, 1997; Westfall, 1998).

Individual Drawbacks

Reports on remote work have also expressed negative impacts on individuals in

the remote work environment. One, the remote worker reports feeling isolated (Chapman

et al, 1995; Fitzer, 1997; Guimaraes & Dallow, 1999; Johnson, 1997; Reinsch, 1997;

Solomon & Templer, 1993; Hoang et al, 2008). Some of the more classical research in

this area also relates the reduction of inner-organizational communication (Ramsower,

1985; Richter & Mehulam, 1993; Hunton and Norman, 2010). Two, individual remote

employees report a tendency to overwork with the office at "arm's length" whenever an

33
idea for solving a problem comes to mind (Fitzer, 1997; Miles, 1994; Moskowitz, 1995).

Three, a very popular concern for the remote worker and a current obstacle to engaging

the best employees in the process, is the concern for being bypassed for promotion when

the remote worker is out of the sight of management (Baruch, 2001; Baruch & Nicholson,

1997; Bresnahan, 1998; Chapman et al, 1995; Gibson et al, 2002; Handy, 1995; Riley &

McCloskey, 1997; Solomon, 2000; Hunton and Norman, 2010). This is where the need

for the employee's trust of the manager, or a system of control of manager-provided

feedback/evaluation, supported and monitored within the organization's performance

structure becomes relevant. The employee must feel that the work they do in the remote

environment, and the recognition for doing that work well, is valuable and contributing to

their future stature within the firm (McCloskey& Igbaria, 2003).

Characteristics of Remote Work

Remote work is unique in many ways from the traditional travel to the office and

joining our fellow-workers in the task of completing the daily assignments. The ability to

manage more of the daily business processes from a distance has already made an impact

on business-as-usual. Technology has allowed for the decentralization of the office

environment as smaller service and support centers are placed in strategic locations far

from the corporate storehouse of information (Siha & Monroe, 2006). This centralization

of data, and the technology to store and manipulate it, has allowed the sharing of that

information through systems located in offices worldwide. It has brought back the

demand for mainframe hardware that is capable of supporting such large quantities of

corporate information (Laudon & Laudon, 2006). While, at the same time, virtual private

34
network technology (VPN) have allowed access to that "real-time" information to anyone

inside the company or its enterprise alliance who has access (worldwide) to the Internet

(McNurnin & Sprague, 2006). This saves time (travel and/or assistance-directed access

to the needed information) and money (avoidance of paying for expensive leased lines for

data transmission).

This ability to function and thrive from the most remote locations with all or part

of the daily business processes being automated or linked with systems a world apart, is

illustrated by Friedman (2005) through cases of McDonald's and unmanned aircraft used

as weapons in Afghanistan and Iraq. Specifically, the idea of ordering a hamburger in

Cape Girardeau, Missouri, and having the order taken and processed by the franchisee's

call center in Las Vegas, Nevada, amazes most who have never considered such

technology. The controls of unmanned weapons being flown in the Middle East, while

being piloted by expertly-trained military personnel with a joy stick in Virginia,

thousands of miles from the danger of conflict, forces questions to the forefront of one's

mind: Why would a fast-food restaurant choose to employ such remote operations?

What is the difference between the normal drive-through employee in Missouri and the

call-center professional Las Vegas? Where does knowledge work begin and end?

The benefits mentioned above have changed the motivations for remote work.

While economic savings and ecological impact are still viable (Grantham and Ware,

2007; Olszewski & Mokhtarian, 1994), companies are now seeking to engage in

remote/mobile work and open schedules to attract, retain, and satisfy employees (Jossi,

2007; Golden and Veiga, 2005). This change in motivation is illustrated in the author's

Illustration 2.1 below.

35
Illustration 2.1

Note Author's graphical depiction of theoretical framework of change in

motivations for remote work

The new motives illustrated above do not negate the value of the original

motivations, but the new values noted m the bottom circle (reflecting the competitive

environment "nvalry") require remote work implementation to attract and keep the best

employees in the world (Bersin, 2007, Capelh, 2007) The characteristics of the

employment environment that will allow remote work to thnve should reflect a means of

saving money through competitive talent management Additionally, these new

motivational factors are strikingly similar to those forces that drove the change to the

Industnal Age environment noted above by Wren (2005)

36
Employment Characteristics

Eight characteristics of the tasks common in successful remote work are detailed

below. One, the tasks are measured easily, can be broken down into more simple

components, and uses knowledge content (Fitzer, 1997; Olszewski & Mokhtarian, 1994;

Westfall, 1997a). This is an important feature of remote work, since it represents the

changing type of work and the greater information the work accesses. Two, little face-to-

face contact is required between management and employee (Duxbury & Higgins, 1995;

Fitzer, 1997, and Weiss, 1994). Three, function does not depend on specific location

geographically for access to materials or equipment (Duxbury & Higgins, 1995; Fitzer,

1997, and Guimataes & Dallow, 1999). It should be noted that this is the reality for more

types of work as the remote technology and universal telecommunications become

ubiquitous. Four, the task is well-defined by policy or the assigning manager, and the

objectives can be readily predicted (Fritz, Narasimhan, and Rhee, 1998; Guimaraes &

Dallow, 1999; Ramsower, 1985; and Westfall, 1997a). Five, as each part of the project

becomes available or necessary, the beginning and end dates are clearly defined (Gray,

Hodson, and Gordon, 1993; Westfall, 1997a). Six, takes its lead from the previous

characteristic in that the assignments can be easily evaluated in terms of quality, quantity,

and timeliness (Baruch & Nicholson, 1997; Duxbury & Higgins, 2002; Johnson, 1997;

Kepczyk, 1998). Seven, the tasks can be accomplished without the continual supervision

of the assigning manager (Baruch & Nicholson, 1997; Kepczyk, 1998). This can relate to

the skill of the employee needed—to be discussed below—and/or the task itself being

more mundane. This could mean the employee is required to participate in extensive

periods of mental concentration (Bailyn, 1994). This could also relate to the tasks being

37
very complex or extremely routine (Fitzer, 1997; Richter & Meshulam, 1993). Eight,

concurrent with the task is the extensive use of information technology (Ramsower,

1985; Weiss, 1994; Westfall, 1997a).

Employee Characteristics

Ten characteristics of the successful employee assigned to remote work

environments are delineated in this section. Employee self-efficacy is a prominent theme

in this section, but the issues are separated into finer elements of self-efficacy in the

remote environment as defined by the research. One, the successful remote employee is

considered autonomous and needs minimal supervision. This relates to self-motivation

and discipline in relation to the assignment (Baruch & Nicholson, 1997; Davenport &

Pearlson, 1998; Fitzer, 1997; Kepczyk, 1998; Weiss, 1994). Two, the employee is

dependable and deemed highly productive prior to remote work (Guimaraes & Dallow,

1999). This trait is reflected in loyalty attributes toward the organization (Fordv 1995).

Three, the remote employee does not show a tendency to overwork (Alvi & Mclntyre,

1993; Cote-O'Hara, 1993; Dixon, 1998; Dunkin & Baig, 1995; Ford, 1995). Four, the

employee is defined as entrepreneurial and requires flexibility in the workplace (Bailyn,

1994; Meyers, 2002; Pearlson, 2001). This trait was previously predicted by Drucker in

relation to virtual teams (Drucker, 1997). Five, the successful remote employee has self-

assessed his/her own work as being confident and capable to perform in a remote

environment (Cote-O'Hara, 1993; Ford, 1995; Staples, Hulland, and Higgins, 1998). Six,

the attitude toward the telecommuting process is very positive (Guimaraes & Dallow,

1999; Johnson, 1997; Solomon & Templer, 1993). Most successful teleworkers

38
volunteer for the assignments (Ford, 1995; Knight & Westbrook, 1999; Huws, 1993,

Mahfood, 1992; Nilles, 1994). Seven, the remote worker is highly skilled and a good

communicator (Baruch & Nicholson, 1997; Guimaraes & Dallow, 1999; Weiss, 1994).

Eight, successful remote workers are efficient in the use of information technology,

which is related to a high skill level (Baruch & Nicholson, 1997; Cascio, 2000;

Guimaraes & Dallow, 1999; Kepcyzk, 1998; Staples, 2001; Staples, Hulland, and

Higgins, 1998). Nine, the employee prefers work with little social action. In fact, this

worker is described as having strong social skills and contacts outside of home and work,

but required little social interaction to be successful at assigned tasks (Baruch &

Nicholson, 1997; Humble et al, 1995; Richter & Meshulam, 1993). Ten, the successful

remote worker has a self-perceived trusting relationship with the immediate supervisor—

from personal experience or through a system of controls (Baruch & Nicholson, 1997;

Chen & Nath, 2005; Handy, 1995; Mayer, 1995; Ruppel & Harrington, 1997; Weiss,

1994).

Characteristics of Successful Implementations of Remote Work

This section will prepare the reader to understand what the research has reported

as to the managerial and environmental attributes for successful implementation of

remote work. The first subsection will define the managerial action or support needed to

succeed. The second section will step back to view the overall organizational

considerations of implementation of a successful remote work environment—taking the

work to the worker. In this portion of the literature the introduction to the eight key

elements of successful remote work environments will be introduced—Input, Evaluation,

39
Communication, Consistency, Defined Rules, Support/Succession, Feedback/Motivation,

Control System. These eight elements are also key to measurement of work (remote or

non-remote) performance.

Managerial Attributes

According to the literature five attributes of the management environment appear

essential to the success of remote work. These items all involve the manner in which the

employee is treated or accepted by management within the relationship of the

organization, manager/employee, or employee/employee. These relationships are only

those areas in which the manager can have an impact. One, the most crucial area noted

as determining the successful longitudinal implementation of remote work is the

necessity of top management to buy in to the concept (Watad et al, 2000; Perez et al,

2003; Crossman, 2005; Mayer, 2005; Adam & Crossan, 2001). Higa and Shin (2003)

reported in numerous case studies in Japan that the buy in of top management to the

success of remote was one of the key reasons for all successful implementations that were

examined. This could be key to consistency in the work environment, which is one of the

eight elements. Harrington and Ruppel (1999) noted that top management's trust of the

remote worker is essential to their buy in. In fact, the obstacle to much implementation

of remote work in Europe and Canada is not trust in general; but, as a Nextra study

found, 23% of top-management do not trust their employees to be productive {Flexible

Working, 2002). Two, management should develop a relationship built on confidence

and trust with the worker and the remote work environment (Caudron, 1992; Christensen,

40
1992; Guimaraes & Dallow, 1999; Harrington & Ruppel, 1999; Staples, 2001b). This

trust/control system is a key element to remote work success. Three, the manager should

work with the remote employee to establish clear and distinct goals and objectives, then

make sure the worker has all of the resources to meet the goals established (Davenport &

Pearlson, 1998; Staples, 2001b). The input provided by the worker is an element that is

key to remote work success. Four, management must provide consistent feedback based

on the evaluation of the remote worker's success at meeting the goals jointly assigned

(Gray, Hodson, and Gordon, 1993; Staples, 2001b; Weiss, 1994; McNall et al, 2010). The

evaluation process in a remote environment provides another element of remote work

success. Five, the manager must consider the remote worker to be as capable and

available as non-remote workers (Fitzer, 1997; Knight & Westbrook, 1999; Staples,

2001a). Concerning this effort by management, a strong communication link between

workers must be designed and maintained by management (Guimaraes & Dallow, 1999;

Kirvan, 1995; Mahfood, 1992; Staples, 2001b; Staples, Hulland, and Higgins, 1998;

Staples, 1996; Major et al, 2008). The importance of remote workers being informed and

involved in organizational activities is also reported in this regard (Apgar, 1998;

Guimaraes & Dallow, 1999; Hoang et al, 2008). This communication is another element

of remote work measurement.

Organizational Attributes

If the organization is to implement and sustain a viable remote work option for its

employees, there are five success factors it must be prepared to nurture, provide, and

41
enhance. These five items have been reported to secure adequate workers to launch the

remote work program while maintaining respect for the program from the non-remote

employees. One, goals and objectives for the program and for each employee assigned

must be established before implementation (Christensen, 1992, Gray; Hodson, and

Gordon, 1993). Determining the how remote workers will be assessed by their

performance is part of the important initial phase (Fitzer, 1997, Staples, 2001b). This

process is more effective if the remote and non-remote workers are assessed equally and

regularly slated meetings are planned in advance of all workers—remote and non-remote

(Staples, 2001a). A variety of ideas, from the literature, are offered as solutions for

communicating expectations to employees in remote and non-remote work environments.

A calendar available to all members of the organization is suggested (Christensen, 1992).

A formal contract with the rules defined between the remote workers and management,

on the behalf of the entire organization, is recommended to establish this first success

factor (Gerber, 1995; McCune, 1998; Westfall, 1997a). Two, the duration and employee

eligibility of the remote-work project should be shared openly within the firm to establish

the aura of management approval at the highest level (Apgar, 1998; Christensen, 1992;

Guimaraes & Dallow, 1999; Higa & Shin, 2003; Weiss, 1994; McNall et al, 2010). This

feedback provided is motivational for the successful remote work environment. Three,

complete training for all members of the firm should be implemented and explained

before the program's initial rollout (Davenport & Pearlson, 1998; Fritz, Narasimhan, and

Rhee, 1998; McCune, 1998; Staples, 1996; Staples, Hulland, andHiggins, 1998; Staples,

2001b). This support mechanism is key to remote work and succession of the firm's

leadership, drawing from all workers.

42
 The previous two attributes are designed to foster a positive viewpoint from all in

the firm and seek enrollment in the ongoing remote work process. The communication

between remote and non-remote workers is also enhanced by this provision. Four,

success of the ongoing process requires technical support for the remote worker and the

determination by the organization to provide the physical environment needed

(Davenport & Pearlson, 1998; Fritz, Narasimhan, and Rhee, 1998; Staples, 2001b). This

should be well planned before implementation begins (Dooley, 2005). Five, data security

must be ensured if the program is to succeed (Weiss, 1994; Hoang, et al, 2008; Cetron

and Davies, 2010). Those impacted by this requirement are those stakeholders along all

of the connections of the enterprise—including customers and suppliers (Adam &

Crossan, 2001; Clear & Dickson, 2005; Dooley, 2005).

Conceptual Foundations in Management Relating to Remote Work

In this section, several suggestions from the literature on remote work have been

aligned with conceptual foundations of management theory. This conceptual foundation

represents the theoretical framework of remote work management. The purpose of the

alignment is to note some of the key issues in implementing remote work, and the eight

elements of successful remote work environments (Communication/Technology,

Trust/Control System, Consistency, Input, Rules Defined, Evaluation,

Feedback/Motivation, and Succession/Support) will be developed in relation to these

issues.

43
Agency Theory/Organizational Behavior/Corporate Culture

Agency theory is seen as relevant, since much of the telecommuting relationships

between management and employees is depicted as contractual (Westfall, 1997a).

Westfall (1997a) refers to Eisenhardt's ten propositions of organizational behavior which

emanate from agency theory. Four are listed below, since they relate most closely to this

topic:

1) When the principal has information to verify agent behavior, the agent is more

likely to behave in the interests of the principal.

2) The risk aversion of the agent is positively related to behavior-based contracts and

negatively related to outcome-based contracts.

3) The goal conflict between principal and agent is negatively related to behavior-

based contracts and positively related to outcome-based contracts.

4) Outcome measurability is negatively related to behavior-based contracts and

positively related to outcome-based contracts.

These four predicates of Westfall's research form a strong foundation for

telecommunications capacity to share information very efficiently, supply feedback and

control mechanisms quickly (even to the point of automated—dynamic—response), thus

creating an effective means of motivation within a telecommuting environment (based on

shared knowledge). This feedback and motivation element is also supported by parallel

research (Apgar, 1998; Christensen, 1992; Guimaraes & Dallow, 1999; Higa & Shin,

2003; Weiss, 1994).

The impact of remote work on the firm seems to be related to the culture found in

the workplace. A strong element of input from all levels of the organization is needed in

44
defining the rules and expectations of the environment. Daniels (2001) looks at the

literature (circa 2001) on "distributed work" and compares it to the differentials in the

growth or lack thereof in a variety of organizations and industries across a variety of

cultures and countries. This research looks at the many uses of teleworking and takes a

multivariate comparison of the value of the individual forms in each application (Daniels

et al, 2001). The innovational environment of telecommuting appears to thrive best in a

firm with an early adopter culture. The early adopter culture accepts change more readily

and will best support the unique characteristics that beset teleworking. The

communication processes, concurrent in this early adopter culture, are essential in

maintaining the knowledge "intensity" of a growing firm (Daniels et all, 2001).

There are three elements of a successful remote work environment that

necessarily relate to this agency relationship, organizational behavior, and corporate

culture (supported by other research) where motivation and feedback are prevalent. The

need to create and maintain defined rules of the work environment and the facilitation of

evaluation of the workplace participants in relation to these rules is strongly related

(Gray, Hodson, and Gordon, 1993; Staples, 2001b; Weiss, 1994; Gerber, 1995; McCune,

1998). Input from a variety of levels within the organization are is elemental to the

culture that breeds success for remote workers (Davenport & Pearlson, 1998; Staples,

2001b).

Contingency Theory

Remote work—telecommuting—in relation to the adoption of technological

innovation and its potential to reduce cost and increase efficiency can be related to

45
contingency theory. Organizational processes are the key contingency (Tomaskovic-

Devey & Risman, 1993). Tomaskovic-Devey and Risman take a rare objective look at

technology adoption, not as decisive but as an integral part of the choices made by

management and employees in the organizational context. This view of organizational

constraints (particularly in the form of bureaucratic inertia) appears to be the key to

unsuccessful implementation of telework.

This impression holds with the literature about the element of communication

(technology). The willingness of management to provide the communication tools

necessary to maintain a successful remote work environment seem to be key to successful

telework implementation (Guimaraes & Dallow, 1999; Kirvan, 1995; Mahfood, 1992;

Staples, 2001b; Staples, Hulland, and Higgins, 1998; Staples, 1996).

Knowledge (Shared Information and Trust/Control)

Remote work requires access to reliable information in the form of the knowledge

of the firm that can be accessed by as many people in the organization as possible.

Telecommunications technology (software and hardware) are the essential pipeline, but

the corporate policies that encourage access to other people and data that can be shared

(safely) by as many people from as many places as possible is the key to successful

knowledge work infrastructure.

The importance of dialogue from all levels of the organization is imperative to the

success of meeting goals and making decisions (Charan, 200 land Senge, 1994). The

most effective way to assure that an organization will act decisively is through

performance and compensation reviews, which are shared via cascading goals with the

46
Workforce Performance Management Systems solution. Charan (2001) states that

genuine feedback gives the chance for employees to learn painful truths that can help

them and managers to develop and grow.

The need to build a trust/control system is necessary for competitive advantage—

sharing of data is more likely if there is a trust/control system in place (Ferguson et al,

2005). Trust is gained from consumers and business partners through adequate security,

control of data and access to it, accountability for the information, and proof of benefit.

According to Ferguson (2005) this trust/control system should involve the company's

level of employees and management. The specific issues of access would meet the goal

of efficiency in sharing of information using the following methods: Spelling out

benefits, Asking for information in context-ask for only the information clearly needed

for the task, and securing sensitive information.

The key to maintaining corporate knowledge would be a strategic implementation of

the eight elements of successful remote work mentioned previously. Two of the essential

eight elements of successful remote work environment related to sharing corporate

knowledge would be support/succession and the trust/control system. To ensure that the

company maintains a successful succession process, keeping the right people and

promoting the most effective, the performance reports should be available to all

constituents tied to the workplace—remote or non—(Staples, 1996; Staples, Hulland, and

Higgins, 1998; Staples, 2001b). The support of those remote workers must be maintained

in order to avoid defragmentation from the source of promotion and its valuation

(Davenport & Pearlson, 1998; Fritz, Narasimhan, and Rhee, 1998; McCune, 1998). This

must be contained in a dynamic control system, in which all levels of employment can

47
trust if employees, management, and the remote work environment are to be sustained

(Caudron, 1992; Christensen, 1992; Guimaraes & Dallow, 1999; Harrington & Ruppel,

1999; Staples, 2001b).

Innovation (Change Management)

Forms that choose to deploy such an innovation as remote work must prepare all

constituents for the change required. The planning for this implementation would require

a mindset of acceptance of changing needs and solutions. The ability of the firm to

change with the evolving needs of customers, employees, and competitive forces require

a culture of innovation. Remote work has been long awaited as the technology has

continued to improve. Yet, many firms will not integrate remote solutions to work until

others lead the way. There are two theories that help explain why this imitation

phenomenon occurs: information based and rivalry based (Lieberman & Asaba 2006).

Information-based theories are founded upon the notion that firms follow other firms that

are perceived to have superior information. This theory applies to an environment in

which managers cannot assess connections between actions and outcomes with great

confidence, leaving them unsure of all the possible outcomes, which make them more

receptive to the information of other firms. Lieberman and Asaba (2006) note numerous

information-based theories that are derived from disciplines of economics and

organizational sociology:

48
 1. The first theory of herd behavior- when it is optimal for an individual, having

observed the actions of those ahead of him to follow the behavior of the preceding

individual without regard to his own information.

2. Second economic theory of herd behavior- based upon the idea that managers

imitate the decisions of others in an effort to avoid a negative reputation.

3. Mimetic Isomorphism- uncertainty breeds mimicry.

Though mimicry can have a positive outcome, imitation can also have the unintended

negative consequence of making into inferior choices by not focusing on the firm's core

values and competencies. Implementation of strategic objectives must align with the

change/innovation process. Changes that lead to remote work structures may require

long-term commitments by the firm and its constituencies. The strategic decision to

successfully deploy more mobile work environments may require enhanced training,

more precise measurements of goals, and established performance standards of everyone

involved in the process. The barriers to the implementation of strategic goals must be

delineated and overcome if long-term goals are to be met within the core competencies of

the enterprise. "Silent killers" are agreed barriers reinforced by blocking strategy

implementation and organizational learning (Beer & Eisenstat 2000). The

communication processes within the company (vertical and horizontal) are essential to

successful remote work for strategic advantage. It is reasonable to note that management

of strategic innovation requires communication goals (Beer & Eisenstat 2000).

This executive-level perception also aligns with the eight elements of remote work.

Two elements of successful remote work related to innovation and change management

would include consistency and input—the firm's ability to align change with strategic

49
objectives and core competencies are key to remote work environments (Watad et al,

2000; Perez et al, 2003; Crossman, 2005; Mayer, 2005; Adam & Crossan, 2001; Higa and

Shin, 2003). The input required from all levels of employment to communicate the role

of change and how each individual job/person is part of the whole system for successful

telework implementation within the dynamic change structure is another essential

element (Davenport & Pearlson, 1998; Staples, 2001b; Hoang et al, 2008, McNall et al,

2010).

Impact of Trust/Control in Remote Work

Research conducted to analyze the decision to implement remote work found

several barriers to those seeking the potential operation efficiencies and economic

savings of the practice. One of the most common barriers cited was the lack of trust or

control in the workplace. Employees who, when given the option of working out of the

office, chose not to leave the office, because they did not trust their supervisor to

remember or consider them when promotion and recognition was to be offered or sense a

system of controls to ensure that recognition is given (Chen & Nath, 2005). This distrust

was based on the perception that their work would go unnoticed by management if that

work was not performed in front of the supervisor. Such feelings of isolation were one of

the reasons cited for the high-turnover rate in employees who leave the office to work

(Cooper & Kurland, 2002).

Managers, also, were often quoted as having reservations of remote work

implementation. Most common of their concerns was the fear of the employee not

working or being as productive as they may have been in the office, where management

50
felt they could control work performance with presence (Crandall & Gao, 2005;

Dimitrova, 2003; Golden & Veiga, 2005; Flexible Working, 2002).

The issue of mutual distrust was noted whether the potential participants were

actually interested in remote work or not. Most of these researchers noted the culture of

the firm fostered stronger feelings of trust when the person under scrutiny was nearby or

visible, thus providing a sense of control of the work environment based on presence.

Both management and employees shared a mutual lack of trust of the other as each

considered the possibility of remote work (Azmi & Khan, 2004; Bailey & Kurland, 2002;

Clear & Dickson, 2005; Mobility and Mistrust, 2004; Mokhtarian, 1991; Sako, 1998).

One remote-work trust study tested a number of relationships that were suggested

as being relevant in a remote work environment (Staples, 2001a). Interpersonal trust of

the employee for their manager was found to be strongly associated with a system of

higher self-perception of performance, higher job satisfaction and lower job stress. There

was weak support for the impact of physical connectivity on job satisfaction, supporting

the enabling role of information technology. These findings were similar to both remote

and non-remote employees.

Trust and the Growth of Remote Work

Does the presence of trust really affect the success of remote work? Harrington

and Ruppel's (1999) research posed this question. Their research noted the need for

available technology, willingness to change the style of management to accommodate

remote work, and a corporate culture that provided an atmosphere of trust. Basically, a

51
system of controls for work environments were expected, whether remote or not. If these

elements were valued or already existed in the firm, remote work would succeed and

grow (Harrington & Ruppel, 1999).

Staples and Ratnasingham (1998 ) questioned the impact of trust in the virtual

workplace. They chose a view that was broader than just the remote work issues as they

compared remote and non-remote employees in relation to trust and job satisfaction, job

stress, and general employee effectiveness. Their findings went against some of the

earlier literature to report that "trust had a larger impact on .. .job satisfaction and job

stress for non-virtually-managed workers than it did for virtual workers" (Staples and

Ratnasingham, 1998 ). They concluded two things. First, managers should focus on

employee activities that "demonstrate competence, responsibility, and professionalism" if

the goal is trust. Second, they agreed that trust is important to corporate effectiveness,

but trust in a remote work environment "does not appear to be any more important than it

is in a non-virtual setting" (Staples and Ratnasingham, 1998 ).

Trust and Presence

It is perceived that trust exists in the work environment where in-office contact

(presence) is perceived to replace management/employee feedback. At least, trust is

perceived to be present whether feedback and control mechanisms are functioning, or not,

if the supervisor and employee are present in the same geographically located office.

Yet, the feedback needed to implement remote work, and the trust that comes from the

systematic measurement of outcomes through promotion of competence and

responsibility, are essential to enhancing employee satisfaction and eventual long-term

52
commitment to the firm (Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman, 1995; Mayer and Gavin, 2005).

Ironically, this same feedback and control environment is needed, even more, in the non-

remote work environment, according to the previously cited research (Staples and

Ratnasingham, 1998).

In 2005, Salary.com hosted a nationwide online survey of office-bound

employees. The questions posed related to how productive the employees were, and the

participants rated themselves (Malachowski, 2005). At one point in the survey, the office

employees were asked to estimate the amount of hours they spent not working for their

respective employers while utilizing the Internet—in the office. By the employee's own

admission, it was determined that in-office employees averaged 2.09 hours per day (of an

eight-hour work day) not working for the employer while on the Internet. The average

salaries of American office employees was formulated and multiplied by the wasted time

average—2.09 hours per day. The researchers determined that the self-reported waste cost

American businesses $759-Billion annually (Malachowski, 2005).

This unofficial research would tend to reflect the determinations that the Treasury

Board of Canada made from its official research in 2000 from its flexible work

environments offered since 1996, involving 200,000 employees (Duxbury & Higgins,

2002). The successful implementation of the Canadian-government firm to create a

"workplace of choice" was based on "basic principles of trust, respect and collaboration"

(Duxbury & Higgins, 2002). The reason stated by the Treasury Board of Canada as to

why the program was able to succeed was that management chose to "dispel the myth

that 'visibility equates to productivity' by ensuring that managers manage by results

rather than by visual presence" (Duxbury & Higgins, 2002).

53
The Trusting Environment and Control Systems

The issue of trust in the general work environment raises many questions about

the meaning of trust, the types of trust, and the basic relationships that are the focus of the

participants in a remote work environment. Drs. Dennis and Michelle Reina (2006)

describe this trust as "transactional," and they denote three types of trust in the

transactional family: contractual, communication, and competence. One of the key

characteristics of transactional trust in an organizational environment is that such trust

must be reciprocal—"Got to give it to get it" (Reina & Reina, 2006). Thus, trust of this

type must be an agreement to be effectively reciprocated. The contractual trust to which

they refer involves "managing expectations, establishing boundaries, delegating

appropriately, encouraging mutually serving intentions, keeping agreements, and being

congruent in [one's] behavior." Note the parallel between the basis for this type of trust

and the characteristics of successful remote work environments discussed in the previous

sections, where a system of communication of feedback and control exists (Mayer, Davis,

and Schoorman, 1995). The effort to manage remotely, which involves economic cost to

maintain these conditions in which this contractual trust can thrive, could be the reason

remote work has been slower to develop than anticipated. This would coincide with the

research of Ralph Westfall (1998 and 1997b). But would trust be the issue as Charles

Handy predicated (1995), or was Drucker (1997) correct in stating that management must

rely on objective based evaluation and strong communication to maintain productivity

whether in a virtual team or in a common office? Yet, previous authors reflect that trust

would be higher in an environment with actual measures of productivity, enhanced

54
feedback and control efforts, established policies for productivity desired, perceived level

of contact, and the actual control needed by management of the employees supervised

(Staples and Ratnasingham, 1998; Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman, 1995). Dr. Reina

questions whether individuals working in this control system really trust others or the

system (Reina and Reina, 2006).

Impact of Technology on the Evolution of Trust at Work

Global/Societal/Enterprise-wide Implementation of Technology

Technology can be a great tool, effectively described as a technology "solution"

(Gerstner, 2002) with the proper respect of the system employed. Several issues

involving technology implementation should be considered when making enterprise-wide

working environments. First, a firm does not change the company to fit technology, but

makes sure the technology is one of many tools for successful implementation of core

competencies (Collins, 2001). Second, efficiencies from successful (precise)

implementation of technology-driven solutions will be cost-effective (Deming, 2000).

Third, utilization of the enterprise's strengths, resources, and competencies that are

already adapted to the given work environment will allow the greatest impact of

efficiency and strategic competitive advantage (Goldratt, 2004).

Not that long ago the growth of remote work was considered inhibited by the lack

of available communication technology (Ramsower, 1985; Pratt, 1997). Globally, the

current abundance of communication technology and its more common use in these

developed countries is, in fact, seen as a contributor to the rise in the implementation of

55
the remote work by management and employees (Perez et al, 2004). In fact, the greater

ability to implement such technology via national infrastructure (not country size) is

noted as a great competitive advantage for that nation's people (Gilder, 2000). This is

reflected in the forecast that Finland, Sweden, and the Netherlands will have the highest

percentage of population participating in remote work by the end of the first decade of

the Twenty-First Century (Jones, 2005).

Societies of Work and Trust

David Kipnis (1996) elaborates on the work of William Faunce (1981) in his

effort to describe the evolution of trust as it evolved through the changes wrought by the

industrial and postindustrial technology in the workplace. Faunce related his concept of

the "Main Drift" which saw the type of work compared to the societal environment in

which it was prevalent—craft/preindustrial, mechanized/industrial, and

automated/postindustrial. Faunce also aligned the locus of controls and relationship of

the individual worker within that societal context—note Table 2.1 below: (Faunce, 1981)

Table 2.1

Type of Society Typical Form of Locus of Controls Relationship of

Organization Individual to
Organization
Preindustrial Proprietorial External traditional No individuation or
self-organized
Industrial Bureaucratic External rational Alienation
Postindustrial Professional Internal Commitment

From this process of changed depicted in the table above, Kipnis (1996),

developed a theory of trust in the proposed environments. Since, in the first type of

56
organization proprietary performance is based on the skills and abilities of the worker,

trust would revolve around the employee's ability to produce high-quality goods

consistently. The second type of society (industrial) changes in technology and

development of production machinery would cause the focus of management to shift

from employee ability to employee character. The third type of society (postindustrial)

with the ability of employees to interact with communications technology would allow

employees to work by themselves or in self-monitoring teams. This third phase of

employment, technology, and work, would require management to trust employees (to an

even greater degree) to manage the technology or create an accepted system of feedback

and control that both parties could trust, as intimated by Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman

(1995). This environment would create a decline in demand for middle management and

the number of employees, while demand for a more highly trained, self-sufficient

workforce would increase, as suggested by Drucker (2002) with the rise of the knowledge

worker.

Kipnis (1996) hypothesized that research for trust in the workplace would

increase as employers became concerned about making "unsupervised employees

trustworthy." The issue of technology, then, can be related to remote work and its

adoption of technology as a causal factor (Perez et al, 2004). The technology acceptance

is equated somewhat with the adoption of highly technical work environment when

management is implementing remote work structure. In fact, the degree of knowledge

work in a given task is highly correlated to the demand for remote work (Perez et al,

2004). Perhaps, using a technology solution, so prevalent in the successful remote work

environment, can enhance the development of a trust/control system. This might give

57
credence to Faunce's (1981) concept that the "automated" mode of production in

postindustrial work environments could be implemented with moderate "rate of social

change."

Will Workforce Performance Management Solutions Encourage the Engagement of

Remote Work?

Today, technological solutions exist in the form of systems (available online) by

firms offering their services as ASPs or application service providers. Anyone, anywhere

can access these Workforce Performance Management Systems (WPMS), in a pay for

use environment, which were designed for employers/employees based anywhere on the

globe. In this environment, companies do not need to take up large amount of space or

manage memory-intensive programs in office-based servers, the perfect fit for remote

work needs. Employees and managers can create, manage, and store real-time feedback

and control processes by going to the service provider's website from anywhere on the

planet ("Getting There", 2005).

WPMS can provide the eight elements, highlighted earlier, required to

successfully implement remote work. These eight elements are offered by directed input

from the performing employee; providing evaluation readily for work performed;

allowing communication between remote employees and office-bound workers;

encouraging consistency in the availability of performance evaluation; posting defined

rules for the workplace not dependent on where the worker is geographically located;

directing support to the remote worker as they remain viable candidates for upward

mobility within the firm; assessing work and encouraging improvement or rewarding for

58
a job well done via feedback mechanisms; and culminating in system of controls that can

be trusted by manager and employee ("Getting There", 2005; Thomas, 2007;

Bersin,2006). If this solution was provided or its availability made known, would this

enhance the workers within an organization to react positively to remote work

opportunities?

Workforce Performance Management Systems (WPMS) represents the tools and

systems that play a key role in the strategic planning process of the corporation. These

systems allow a company to gather, store, access and analyze corporate human capital

data to aid in decision-making (Aguinis, 2007; Bacal, 1999). Generally, these systems

support strategic decision processes and planning based on identified goals in the area of

employee/management communications, feedback and control systems, and workforce

performance monitoring (Aguinis, 2007). Josh Bersin (2006) suggests that these WPMS

application providers are very competitive with one another. The WPMS product is

becoming increasingly necessary in the current global battle for talent procurement,

retention, and succession (Bersin, 2006).

Summary of Previous Research and How It Relates

The picture is clear as to the attributes of the worker, leader, and organization of

successful or unsuccessful remote work implantation. The motivations for adding remote

work flexibility have changed as the global workforce becomes leaner and skilled

workers become more sought after. The need to keep workers, compete for workers, and

keep work fluid would seem to make telework extremely popular. It can be a productive

alternative to standard office knowledge work, but it can also lead to alienation and short-

59
term assignments. Trust/control solutions would seem to favor a WPMS implementation

for remote and non-remote workers, though it might not impact remote work interest and

participation. Validating the effectiveness of WPMS in recruiting remote work requires

both assessment and education.

60
 Chapter 3: Research Methodology

The concept of creating change in willingness to engage in remote work, based on

change in awareness of a solution (Workforce Performance Management Systems-

WPMS) designed to simulate elements needed to succeed, requires a comparison. This

chapter will delineate the process of testing the same population with two surveys

provided on opposite sides of a series of messages to inform the sample population of the

eight elements of remote work—Communication/Technology, Trust/Control System ,

Consistency, Input, Rules Defined, Evaluation, Feedback/Motivation, and

Succession/Support. The purpose of this process will be to determine whether the

awareness of WPMS would create a statistically significant increase in the willingness to

engage in remote work.

Pedagogical Approach

A random selection of working adults were invited to participate in a testing and

teaching process concerning the availability and capability of workforce performance

management systems (WPMS). A sufficient sample was tested to evaluate those who are

in management/ownership positions.

Literature on Pedagogical Research

The approach utilized in this study was previously used in an effort to measure

potential changes to services offered in assisted living environments. The process

involved educating the customers (adults who had relatives living in the assisted living

61
environment) as to what services could be available in comparison to what was currently

available (Olorunniwo, Festus, Byron Pennington, and Maxwell K. Hsu, 2002).

The impact of learning what services were available in the assisted living centers

allowed the customer to aid in developing a blueprint of services desired in meeting the

needs of the customer's family member living in the center. This pre-education and post-

education was valuable in providing the participants with viable solutions already

available, and evaluating the participant response to those solutions after learning of their

availability (Olorunniwo, Festus, Byron Pennington, and Maxwell K. Hsu, 2002).

Basically, a pre/post assessment is employed to develop a baseline, educate, and

determine if a change in awareness will lead to a change in willingness to use the

solutions that are available. If a participant has a change in interest after the education

element is applied, will that positively affect the willingness to act differently

(Olorunniwo, Festus, Byron Pennington, and Maxwell K. Hsu, 2002).

Research Context of Site

The data collection and survey instrument was delivered via an open website,

sponsored and secured by SurveyGizmo.com to which a variety of workers and

management personnel were directed. Each participant was assigned a participant

number upon enrolling in the site before completing the demographic information. All

demographic and pre/post survey questions were required. Sixty-three respondents failed

to complete the survey and demographic information, and their responses were not

captured or accessible for research.

62
 Subjects or Participants

Anyone officially invited or coincidentally aware of the survey web site could

have participated by going to the secured web link attached to the survey instrument.

Data of the participants that completed the pre and post/training surveys were tabulated.

This was due to the nature of the necessity of the Paired-Sample t Test (or the Wilcoxon

Signed-Ranks Test which was eventually used in light of data distribution problems),

which requires a matching number of responses to analyze data effectively. To enhance

the possibility of management-level participants, M.B.A. programs (representing

Northwest Arkansas and Central Indiana) from two private universities were enlisted to

invite students or alumni to the survey site. One Northeast Oklahoma university was

encouraged to invite their undergraduate students, graduate students, and faculty from the

Business college. This grouping of graduate, undergraduate and faculty provided a

potential population size of 1,472.

A goal of the survey solicitation process was to acquire at least 100 management

responses to the survey instrument. Of the 1,472 individuals that were invited, 217

completed responses, providing a 14.74% response rate. Of the 217 participants that

completed the survey, 112 reported that they were management-level personnel at their

respective firms. This should offer a valuable difference in perspectives as to

trust/control and performance measurement in the work environment for future research,

and a balance of perspectives in the current research measuring willingness to engage or

allow engagement in remote work environments. The goal was to survey the participants

twice concerning the eight elements of remote work performance success, evaluating the

63
participants' awareness of these eight elements. An extended teaching (pedagogical)

process designed to educate the participants of the availability of WPMS created to

provide measuring tools for the eight elements of remote work performance success

interrupted the two surveys, though the training element directly preceded the post-

survey/training question. It was possible that the individual participant would change his

or her perspective of remote work opportunities if these eight elements were capable of

being measured from anywhere work takes place within a firm. The process (which was

conducted completely online) had three parts: Pre-Information Survey,

Information/Education Element, and Post-Information Survey. The goal was to measure

whether the change in knowledge (awareness) of WPMS positively enhanced the

willingness to engage in remote work on a regular basis.

Sample Size Determination for Study

Utilizing a trusted site for interactive research tools —

http://www.biomath. in fo/power/prt.htm, this researcher was able to determine the proper

sample size for a very high Power Probability rating for a Paired-Sample t-Test.

When 103 participants had completed the survey this interactive site was used to

determine a proper sample size for an 80-90% Power Probability. A Paired-Sample t-

Test was generated on the first pair of the survey, comparing Ql to Tl (Question 1 of the

the Pre-Information Survey with Training 1 of the Post-Information Survey. The

following information was entered:

a = 0.05%

64
 Mean Difference = .244

Standard Deviation = 1.131

Power Probability Rating desired = 80

Proper Sample Size =171

The same information was entered for a Power Probability Rating of 90. The

Proper Sample Size was estimated to be 228. With this information the goal was then

centered on reaching 100 management participants, and an 80 Power Probability Rating.

With 217 participants, the Power Probability would be estimated to be between 80-90.

Survey Size for Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test

Unlike the parametric testing requiring normal distribution and greater sample

size, the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks (WSR) Test can be effective in hypothesis testing (not

estimation of effects as in this case) with much smaller sample size (Whitley & Ball,

2002). For the WSR to be at its most powerful the larger the sample size the better, but

the size estimation for a parametric test ( such as the Paired-Sample t Test noted above)

should be more than what is necessary for the nonparametric WSR (Whitley & Ball,

2002).

Review of Sample Population

A breakdown of the respondents is provided in the Appendix A. The

demographic information that was required from all participants provides a profile for the

65
sample. The following characteristics could be determined from the sample population:

Industry Type, Job Time, Gender, Age, Education Level, Teleworker Status, and Current

Position as delineated in Table 3.1. This information was not relevant to the current

research that focused on the eight elements of successful remote work related to

Workforce Performance Management Systems (WPMS) software solutions and the

willingness to consider remote work before and after the application. Yet, this

demographic data could be helpful in the future research of correlating potential

variations in willingness to engage in remote work before and after awareness of the

availability of WPMS within these demographic topics. The following discussion

describes the breakdown of the demographic profile of the 217 participants.

Respondents were asked about the type of industry in which they are currently

working, or the industry most related to their past experience if they are currently

unemployed. Five major groupings had enough substantial responses to be separated

from Others. Accounting, Finance, Banking was the most popular industry represented

with 19.3% of respondents noting this was their career choice. This was followed by

Sales and Marketing at 17.4%, Management (including Corporate Management) tied with

Health Care at 7.3%, and Education at 6%. This leaves 42.7% of respondents who

reported being unemployed, or serving in various service positions.

Each participant was asked to divulge the amount of time they had been working

at their current position. Job time was divided into five categories: Unemployed, less

than a year, between 1 and 3 years, between 4 and 7 years, and 7 or more years.

Surprisingly, this sample population reported that 45.9% had been at the same position

for more than seven years. Since a professional base of respondents was sought after for

66
this research, it could be indicative of this focus that a longer job time is standard. The

researcher was not expecting this level of long-term employment in the current economic

environment, although keeping the same job could be the standard philosophy while jobs

are hard to acquire. The second most popular job time selection was 1-3 years at 25.2%

followed closely by 4-7 year work history at 20.6% Only 7.3% of respondents had been

working for less than one year at their current position, and less than 1% reported they

were currently unemployed.

One of the goals of the data collection process was to acquire at least 100

management-level participants. Ironcially, with the 217 completed surveys, the Current

Position and Gender characteristics of the respondents was nearly split in both cases.

Female to male responses were 53.7% compared 46.3%, respectively, while employees

outnumbered management responders by only 5.6%—note Table 3.1.

Table 3.1

Industry Accounting, Sales and Mgmt Health Education Others

Type Finance, Marketing 7 3% Care 6 0% 42 7%
Banking 17 4% 7 3%
19 3%
Job Time 7+ years 4-7 yrs 1-3 yrs <lyr Unemployed
45 9% 20 6% 25 2% 7 3% 0 9%
Gender Female Male 46 3%
53 7%
Age Under 18 18-24 25-34 35-54 55+
N/A 15 1% 26 1% 51 8% 6 9%
Education Did not HS Diploma Some Associate Bachelors Post-
Level complete HS or GED 1 4% College Degree Degree Graduate
N/A 8 7% 15 1% 14 7% Degree
60 1%
Teleworker No Remote 1-3 Days/ 4-7 Days/ 8-12 Days/ 12+ Days/
Status Work 75 2% Month Month Month Month
5 0% 4 1% 4 1% 11 5%
Current Employee Management
Position 52 8% 47 2%
(Table created )y author)

67
 Age divisions among the sample population showed no unique breakdown with a

professional base for the sample. There were no participants under 18 years of age. The

largest portion (51.8%) of the sample were between the ages of 35 and 54 years of age,

followed by the 25-34 year age group with 26.1%. 18-24 year old participants made up

15.1%> of the sample population. The oldest age group of 55 years and older were only

6.9% of the participants.

The Education Level of the participants provided a rather dominating group as

those with a Post-Graduate degree made up 60.1%o of the sample population. The second

and third highest groups were those with Associates and Bachelors degrees with 15.1%

and 14.7%, respectively. Those with a high school diploma and some college courses

made up 10.1% of the population, collectively. None of the participants failed to

complete their high school education.

According to Table 3.1 the Teleworker Status division of the demographic data

the majority 75.2% of the population are not involved in working remotely at all. The

original desire of this researcher was to have at least 50% of the population that was not

teleworking. The next most popular group (at 11.5%) was the most involved in telework

with 12 or more days per month working in the remote environment, which aligns with

the Deirenger Report (Telework Trends, 2009). The least active teleworker group

(teleworking for only 1-3 days per month) made up 5% of the participants. Those

participating in remote work for 4-7 days or 8-12 days per month, both represented 4.1%

of the sample population.

The combination of these characteristics provides the personality for the data

analysis process below. There may be a remarkable correlation to this personality with

68
 responses to the survey, but this study focuses on the change in mean scores of the

population sample. The responses that follow will compare the eight elements of

successful remote work, as they relate to the hypothetical introduction to the support of

Workforce Performance Management Systems (WPMS).

Instruments and Materials Used

The final Survey Instrument (Appendix B) was developed after applying eight

elements of successful remote work, taken from the literature in Chapter 2 of this work,

and comparing to the similar functions of the Workforce Performance Management

Systems available in industry today—Communication/Technology, Trust/Control

System, Consistency, Input, Rules Defined, Evaluation, Feedback/Motivation, and

Succession/Support. The eight elements were measured by the participant's evaluation

based on a seven-level Likert scale. The example below (Table 3.2) was the model used

to develop the questions that became part of the final Survey Instrument.

Table 3.2

Research Questions Before and After

Likert Scale evaluates willingness to consider engaging in a remote work environment.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
< •
Most Unwilling Unwilling Disinterested Indifferent Interested Willing Most Willing

Willingness to Consider Working in a Remote Work Environment

69
 Before - Reflects current remote/non-
remote work environment
(In relation to the eight elements essential
to successful remote work)
Where you work now, rate your
willingness to consider remote work:
Input:
Freedom to choose my schedule and set my
goals of productivity within the current
work environment has an impact on my
willingness to work remotely
1-2-3-4-5-6-7
Evaluation:
Level of management awareness of my
work habits/ethic and the impact on current
work environment
1-2-3-4-5-6-7
Communication (Technology):
The ability to communicate with fellow
workers and supervision has an impact on
my willingness to work remotely
1-2-3-4-5-6-7
Consistency:
Feedback with management is sure and
focused affecting my willingness to work
in a distributed environment
1-2-3-4-5-6-7
Rules Defined:
Agreed work performance measurement
being articulated and implemented would
impact my willingness to work remotely
70
After - Reflects desirable/non-desirable
remote work environment after learning of
WPMS technology
(From what I now know about WPMS)
If WPMS tools were implemented in my
current workplace, this is how I would rate
my willingness to consider remote work:
Input:
Ability of management systems to allow
my supervisor and me to monitor my goals
and track my performance in relation to the
goals has an impact on my willingness to
work remotely
1-2-3-4-5-6-7
Evaluation:
System capabilities to report work behavior
to management and the impact on my
willingness to work out of the current
environment
1-2-3-4-5-6-7
Communication (Technology):
Access to remote office files and fellow
workers/supervisors via
telecommunications technology would
have an impact on my willingness to work
remotely
1-2-3-4-5-6-7
Consistency:
Constant availability of my current
performance consistently related with
agreed goals and management perceptions
would impact my willingness to work in a
telework environment
1-2-3-4-5-6-7
Rules Defined:
Management awareness of what my
performance should be with the ability to
readily/instantly compare with my daily
effort would impact my willingness to
work remotely
1-2-3-4-5-6-7 1-2-3-4-5-6-7
Support/Succession: Support/Succession:
Potential promotion within the company My supervisor's instantaneous access to
would impact my decision to work outside my daily performance when making
the office succession decisions would impact my
willingness to work outside the office

1-2-3-4-5-6-7 1-2-3-4-5-6-7
Feedback/Motivation: Feedback/Motivation:
Regular evaluations of my work based on Knowing that management can readily
agreed performance measurements would provide feedback as to my efforts
impact my work location anytime/anywhere would affect my
willingness to work remotely

1-2-3-4-5-6-7
Control (System is trusted):
Control mechanisms to encourage me to
maintain agreed performance goals,
possibly realigning my efforts would
impact my willingness to work remotely
1-2-3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7
Control (System is trusted):
Systematic adjustments to my work via
comparison to agreed goals and
realignment suggestions would affect my
willingness to work remotely

1-2-3-4-5-6-7 1-2-3-4 -5-6-7

Focus Groups

1'wo focus groups were deployed to create and evaluate the final instrument. The

first focus group was responsible for testing a group of questions created by the author.

The first focus group consisted of two subgroups of students and Instructors who were

asked to evaluate the willingness of a participant to complete the instrument as delivered

and to evaluate the terminology of the education element. The first subgroup found the

original education element to be very time-consuming and unreliable—depending on

what Internet Service Provider utilized by a given participant. The original education

element was a web-ready PowerPoint slide presentation, which was linked to the pre-

information survey and then linked back to the post information survey. It was

determined that the education element was too lengthy (nearly 25 minutes). The first

71
subgroup was asked to test the topics/elements for alignment and understanding. This

subgroup also made suggestions in the order of the questions and topics. Through this

process the order of the topics and phrasing was greatly enhanced. The change of logical

order is listed below in Table 3.3:

Table 3.3

Original Order New Logical Order

Input Communication/Technology

Evaluation Trust/Control System

Communication?Technology Consistency

Consistency Input

Rules Defined Rules Defined

Support/Succession Evaluation

Feedback/Motivation Feedb ack/Moti vation

Trust/Control System Succession/Support

The second subgroup, of the first focus group, consisted entirely of non-business

majors and graduates. The goal of this group was to determine the ability of non-

business trained professionals to comprehend the survey questions and training. This

second subgroup found the original survey to be readily understandable, but too

superfluous. The suggestions from the first focus group were to reduce the length of the

education element and to remove redundant terms and the abundance of adjectives and

adverbs from the instrument.

72
 The researcher then made drastic changes to the instrument and the education

element. First, the editing of redundancies and unnecessary modifiers was completed.

Second, the survey questions were written to address and invite management and

employee participation. Third, the education element was reduced to a printed format,

and the shortened training elements were eventually added as eight training components

in the form of a preface to the post information survey.

The second focus group was made up of skilled research professionals and

educators. After this researcher revised the instrument, the goal was to create a survey

process that could be completed in an average often minutes. The suggestions from the

second focus group centered on eliminating any training or question terms that were not

completely necessary. This second focus group made suggestions that removed another

seven minutes from the survey completion time.

After changes by the researcher, the final Survey Instrument was built into a form

on the SurveyGizmo.com site. It was tested and timed by the survey development

software and determined to be a ten minute, and forty-four-second process. This was

very close to the ten minute suggestion by part of both focus groups.

Research Question

Can availability of Workforce Performance Management Systems (WPMS) positively

affect the decision to engage in remote work environments?

73
Null Hypotheses:

A paired-sample "t-test" or some form of two-means test should validate whether there is

a statistically significant difference in the survey results between the pre-information and

post-information sessions. The results of the test will determine the answers to the two

major hypotheses below:

Hlo: Workforce performance management solutions have no relationship to the

willingness to engage in remote work.

Pre-information u = Post-information u

H1 A : Workforce performance management solutions are perceived as positively

affecting the willingness to engage in remote work.

Pre-information u < Post-information u

Procedures Followed

The final Survey Instrument consisted of three parts—the Pre-information Survey, the

Training/Education element, and the Post-Information Survey. The object was to

determine the effectiveness of the training element in relating a positive, statistically

significant, change in the evaluation of the Post-Information Survey from the baseline

created in the Pre-information Survey.

74
Pre-Information Survey

The necessary ingredient to the pre-information survey was that the flow of

questions should relate the topic to the participant's current interest to work remotely

based on the validity of the eight elements of remote work performance success. This

group of survey questions developed a baseline for measuring current interest and change

in interest when compared to the post-information survey. A review of the pre-

information survey results as designed to be helpful in seeing the different interest levels

within the basic demographic groups collected prior to the beginning of the pre-

information survey questions.

Information/Education Element

All survey participants read a short training outline of the capability of the WPMS

software, which is completely Internet-based. The training contains information about

Workforce Performance Management Systems (WPMS) that provide ready-made

communication tools to monitor workforce performance, performance evaluations and

automated feedback and control solutions. The purpose of this training was to supply a

pedagogical process that encouraged the participant to see that software is already

available that can enhance the required feedback and control systems in which to utilize

and maintain the eight key elements to successful remote work performance

(Olorunniwo, Festus, Byron Pennington, and Maxwell K. Hsu, 2002). The researcher

expects the participants to become aware that the systems solutions will require

considerable additional effort to communicate on the part of the manager/employee

75
surveyed, if such a system of feedback and controls is to be implemented or does not

already exist within the culture of the organization in which the participant works. The

common focus of the Pre-Information and Post-Information Survey is to engage the

participant in the awareness of their current workplace, and determine the impact of the

WPMS implementation (based on the Information/Education Element) on the

participant's workday or career. The software will not set up the system of workforce

performance management in the individual workplace, and unless the company

employee/supervisor is willing to participate in or create such a system, the impact of the

WPMS will be statistically negligible.

Post-Information Survey (Management Dilemmas)

Retesting of the survey topics related to the eight elements of WPMS software

dealing directly with the eight elements of successful remote work performance from the

Pre-Information Survey were given. The post-information survey questions were asked

directly following the reading of each WPMS training topic related in order to the

questions in the pre-information survey. The pre-information and post-information

survey results were ascertained by comparing the first pre-information survey questions

with the first training topic and post-information question. This process was designed to

equate Ql with Tl—the first question in the survey (pre-information survey question

one) with the ninth question in the survey (post-information question 1)—since both

questions are on the same topic— Communication/Technology. Necessary ingredients to

the post-information questions are that the system solution relates to the pre-information

76
statement, the participant is reminded that the technological solution is a part of a

systematic approach thoroughly discussed within the Information/Education Element,

and the key to success of the system solution will require the conformity, accountability,

and integrity of the participant (whether supervisor or employee). People implement

systems.

Data Analysis

Difficulty with Normality Assumptions of Paired Sample t Test

The paired-sample t-test assumes that pairs of data are coming from a single

sample or from matched subjects. In this case the same subjects are tested by survey in

relation to the original interest in remote work by rating the current working conditions of

the employing firm. The mean score of the post-information survey when compared with

the pre-information mean score might show a positive or negative relationship.

The primary purpose of desiring the use of the Paired-Sample t Test is due to its

high power probability over other comparisons of two surveys by the same person,

similar to a pre/post assessment (Whitley & Ball, 2002). Yet, the Paired-Sample t Test

assumes a normal distribution of the data and ordered data (such as a Likert Scale of 1-7)

are necessary (Whitley & Ball, 2002).

Chart Analysis—Histogram Skewed Left

After running the tests (Paired-Sample t Tests) on all survey comparisons of the

element questions (Ql through Q8), compared to element training questions (Tl through

T8), the SPSS output seemed completely foreign to the expected results. The p values

77
were extremely high. The researcher began testing for normal distribution of the data.

Table 3.4 is a listing of the resulting numeric SPSS output, which has been converted to

a table presentation for the reader.

Table 3.4

Distribution Skewness and Kurtosis for Ql Tl Through Q9 T9

Survey Skewness Kurtosis

Ql -1.171 .992
Tl -.926 .347
Q2 -1.040 .529
T2 -.914 .396
Q3 -.958 .338
T3 -.863 .372
Q4 -1.030 .285
T4 -.944 .546
Q5 -.890 .241
T5 -.888 .462
Q6 -.817 -.015
T6 -.802 .027
QV -.838 .090
T7 -.875 .150
Q8 -.624 -.307
T8 -.788 .222

Explanation of the Skewness and Kurtosis Measurements

Though the numeric measurements are only one of the tests for normal data

distribution, the grouping found in Table 3.4 is clearly indicative of a left skewed data, as

will be demonstrated in the following explanation. The term skewness refers to the

measurement of the degree and direction of asymmetry. A symmetric distribution found

in a normal distribution has a skewness of 0, and a distribution that is skewed to the left,

e.g. when the mean is less than the median, has a negative skewness (Annotated SPSS

Output: Descriptive Statistics, 2008). An example of a left-skewed curve is provided in

78
Illustration 3.1, which reflects the actual scatter plot chart of the Ql Tl test. The high

pre-assessment score allows little difference between the pre and post assessment values.

Illustration 3.1

Detrended Normal Q-Q Plot of Comm Tech Q1

for Status= Complete

Observed Value

Detrended Normal Q-Q Plot of Comm Tech T1

for Status= Complete

0 2-
O o

E
Z
E O
o
"£ -0 4 -
(V
Q 0

-0 6 -
O

-0 8-
I I I I I I I

Observed Value

79
 Kurtosis is a measure of the heaviness of the tails of a distribution. Extremely

non-normal distributions may have high positive or negative kurtosis values, while nearly

normal distributions will have kurtosis values close to 0 (Annotated SPSS Output:

Descriptive Statistics, 2008). According to the UCLA Academic Technology Services

Consulting Group (2008), "Kurtosis is positive if the tails are 'heavier' than for a normal

distribution and negative if the tails are 'lighter' than for a normal distribution."

Looking at the report provided by SPSS in Table 3.4, we can see from the

constant negative values in the Skewness column that the data is skewed left. From the

Kurtosis column we are given somewhat mixed signals in that the majority of the tests

reflect non-normal distributions (negative, low, or non-zero test values), but in Q6, T6,

Q7, and T7 the normality is not as clearly viewed. For this reason, further testing was

necessary.

Kolmogorov-Smirnov Results

The Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test (KS test) was completed to verify normality of

the data. The KS test compared the two data sets (pre/post surveys) and determined

whether a normal distribution is possible. To complete the KS test, the web site

http://www.physics.csbsiu.edu/stats/KS-tcst.html (created by the College of St. Benedict

and St. John's University), was utilized. The analysis of the two data sets is noted in

Report 3.1. (Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test, 2010).

80
Report 3.1

Kolmogorov-Smirnov Comparison of Two Data Sets

The results of a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test performed at 20:52 on 25-JUL-2011

The maximum difference between the cumulative distributions, D, is: 0.0645 with a
corresponding P of: 0.743

Data Set 1:

217 data points were entered

Mean = 5.461

95% confidence interval for actual Mean: 5.260 thru 5.662

Standard Deviation = 1.50

High = 7.00 Low = 1.00

Third Quartile = 7.00 First Quartile = 5.00

Median = 6.000

Average Absolute Deviation from Median =1.14

John Tukey defined data points as outliers if they are 1.5*IQR above the third quartile or
below the first quartile. Following Tukey, the following data points are outliers: 1.00 1.00
1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00

KS says it's unlikely this data is normally distributed: P= 0.00 where the normal
distribution has mean= 4.975 and sdev= 1.539

KS says it's unlikely this data is log normally distributed: P= 0.00 where the log normal
distribution has geometric mean= 4.386 and multiplicative sdev= 1.675

Data Set 2:

217 data points were entered

Mean = 5.304

81
95% confidence interval for actual Mean: 5.102 thru 5.506

Standard Deviation =1.51

High = 7.00 Low =1.00

Third Quartile = 6.50 First Quartile = 5.00

Median = 6.000

Average Absolute Deviation from Median =1.19

John Tukey defined data points as outliers if they are 1.5*IQR above the third quartile or
below the first quartile. Following Tukey, the following data points are outliers: 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00

KS says it's unlikely this data is normally distributed: P= 0.00 where the normal
distribution has mean= 4.848 and sdev= 1.534

KS says it's unlikely this data is log normally distributed: P= 0.00 where the log normal
distribution has geometric mean= 4.213 and multiplicative sdev= 1.703

The KS test was performed on the second element data (Q2 compared to T2).

The data represented in Report 3.1 is given for both data sets as: "unlikely this data is

normally distributed." It is also reported that both data sets are not likely to be log

normally distributed due to the abnormality of the means, standard deviations and and

extremely low or high p values. Outliers for both data sets are the low range responses

1.0 and 2.0. Again, this is indicative of the high Pre-Education survey (Kolmogorov-

Smirnov Test, 2010). To avoid having to switch to non-parametric testing procedures

approved transformation processes of the data were attempted to correct the issues.

82
Attempts at Transformation of the Data

Since the data appears to exhibit the tendencies of a left-skewed curve, the most

common approach to transform the data is to square (x ) and/or cube (x ) the responses

(Chambers, Cleveland, Kleiner & Tukey, 1983). To create the most logical approach to

this process, the same survey element was used (Q2 compared to T2) in the previous KS

test to see if the data could be transformed to normal distribution.

As Illustration 3.2 denotes, the Q2 responses still graphically provide a left-

skewed image, as seen in the histogram below. The T2 data also remained left skewed,

as seen in Illustration 3.3, after squaring the responses.

Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test for Squared Q2T2 Transformation

The Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test was applied to the squared data in the Q2T2

analysis. The results are noted in Report 3.2 below. Again, the two data sets are

considered unlikely to be normal or log normal.

Illustration 3.2

50-

-40-
3
O
O
t t

1
20- Ml
f——~"
i
f
t* V
_'
o- 1
1' — i
1
— ' — • — | — '
1
i i i i i
1 4 9 16 25 36 99

Trust/ControlCS

83
Illustration 3.3

Report 3.2 Squared Data Sets

Kolmogorov-Smirnov Comparison of Two Data Sets

Data Set 1:

217 data points were entered

Mean = 32.00

95% confidence interval for actual Mean: 30.08 thru 33.93

Standard Deviation = 14.4

High = 49.0 Low =1.00

Third Quartile = 49.0 First Quartile = 25.0

Median = 36.00

Average Absolute Deviation from Median = 11.8

84
KS says it's unlikely this data is normally distributed: P= 0.00 where the normal
distribution has mean= 29.36 and sdev= 12.48

KS says it's unlikely this data is log normally distributed: P= 0.00 where the log normal
distribution has geometric mean= 19.06 and multiplicative sdev= 2.804

Data Set 2:

217 data points were entered

Mean = 30.40

95% confidence interval for actual Mean: 28.50 thru 32.30

Standard Deviation = 14.2

High = 49.0 Low =1.00

Third Quartile = 42.5 First Quartile = 25.0

Median = 36.00

Average Absolute Deviation from Median = 12.1

KS says it's unlikely this data is normally distributed: P= 0.00 where the normal
distribution has mean= 28.35 and sdev= 12.22

KS says it's unlikely this data is log normally distributed: P= 0.00 where the log normal
distribution has geometric mean= 17.75 and multiplicative sdev= 2.899

Cubed Transformation Process

Since the data continued to exhibit the tendencies of a left-skewed curve, the next

step to transform the data was to cube (x3) the responses (Chambers, Cleveland, Kleiner

& Tukey, 1983). The same survey element was used (Q2 compared to T2) to see if the

data could be transformed to normal distribution.

85
 As Illustration 3.4 denotes, the Q2 responses still graphically provide a left-

skewed image, as seen in the histogram below. The T2 data also remained left skewed,

as seen in Illustration 3.5, after cubing the responses.

Illustration 3.4

HIT

<3

2D-

I
|

J 1
a 2'
i
B*- >2S
1
2 D
1
3*3

Trust/Ccntrd Q2

Illustration 3.5

mr

sr

»n-

5
8«r

IT
;

ir

1 1 * 1™" i i i i
1 a 2' :IB 94

Trust/Cortrol T2

86
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test for Cubed Q2T2 Transformation

The Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test was applied to the cubed data in the Q2T2

analysis. The results are noted in Report 3.3 below. Again, the two data sets are

considered unlikely to be normal or log normal.

Since this transformation process was unsuccessful in transforming the data and

allowing for a normal distribution in the data sets, a non-parametric test would be

required. The Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test was determined the best fit for this data for

its power probability, which will be discussed later in this chapter.

Report 3.3 Cubed Data Sets

Kolmogorov-Smirnov Comparison of Two Data Sets

The results of a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test performed at 23:08 on 2-AUG-2011
The maximum difference between the cumulative distributions, D, is: 0.0645 with a
corresponding P of:
0.743
Data Set 1:
217 data points were entered
Mean =196.4
95% confidence interval for actual Mean: 181.0 thru 211.8
Standard Deviation =115.
High = 343. Low =1.00
Third Quartile = 343. First Quartile =125.
Median = 216.0
Average Absolute Deviation from Median = 96.8
KS says it's unlikely this data is normally distributed: P= 0.00 where the normal
distribution has mean=
188.1 and sdev= 90.81
KS says it's unlikely this data is log normally distributed: P= 0.00 where the log normal
distribution has
geometric mean= 83.30 and multiplicative sdev= 4.697
Data Set 2:
217 data points were entered
Mean =182.2
95% confidence interval for actual Mean: 167.2 thru 197.2
Standard Deviation =112.
High = 343. Low =1.00

87
Third Quartile = 280. First Quartile = 125.
Median = 216.0
Average Absolute Deviation from Median = 97.0
KS says it's unlikely this data is normally distributed: P= 0.00 where the normal
distribution has mean=
180.4 and sdev= 88.77
KS says it's unlikely this data is log normally distributed: P= 0.00 where the log normal
distribution has
geometric mean= 74.80 and multiplicative sdev= 4.935

Explanation and Example of the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test Process

The SPSS software output for the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks (WSR) test contains

two tables—the Descriptive Table and the Ranks Table (Table 3.5). The Descriptive

Table contains all statistics that are required to calculate the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks

tests. The sample size and the sum of ranks are included with the mean rank, which helps

with the interpretation of the data.

The Wilcoxon Sign test (though not as powerful as the WSR) answers the

question of the difference between the first survey and the training survey, and whether

the difference is significant from zero. In addition, this test provides evidence of the

probability of whether the observed difference in mean ranks can also be found in the

general population. This is the information contained in the Test Statistics Table of the

WSR, which contains the z-value and significance test or p-value (Table 3.5). Please,

note that this table is an actual result of the data for the first element of the data analysis

(Ql Tl) comparing the first question (Ql Communication/Technology) and the ninth

question (and the first training component—Tl Communication/Technology).

88
Explanation of Results

The results from the Descriptives Table (Table 3.5) illustrate the differences

between the two surveys answered by each participant and how their answers to the Post-

Education Survey or Training Question differ from the Pre-Education Survey. The

Quartiles, Mean, and Median comparison displays the common answers (scores) from the

two surveys provided by the same participant for Q] Tl.

Table 3.5

Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test

D e s c r i p t i v e Statistics

Percentiles

N Mean Std. Deviation ivinimum Maximum 25th 50th (Median) 75ti

C o m m T e c h Q1 217 5J63 1.447 1 7 5 DO 6DD 7.00

C o m m T e c h T1 217 5.38 1.499 1 7 5HD 6 DO 7 00

Ranks

N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks

Co mm Tech T1 Comm Negative Ranks 70' 53.48 3743.50

Tech CM
Positive Ranks 35b 52.04 1821.50

Ties 112"=

Total 217

a. Comm Tech T 1 < C o m m T e c h Q1

b. Comm T e c h T I > Comm Tech Q1

c Comm Tech T1 = Comm Tech Q1

Test S t a t i s t i c s '

Comm Tech T1 -
Comm Tech Q1

z -3229"

ftpp. Sig. (2-tailed) .001

a. Based on positive ranks.

b. M c o x o n Signed Ranks Test

89
 The Ql mean (pre survey) is 5.63, while the Tl mean (post survey) is lower at

5.38. The Percentiles on this element are identical at all quartiles at 5.00 (25l Quartile),

6.00 (Median), and 7.00 (75th Quartile).

According to the Ranks Test section of Table 3.5 there are 112 tied ranks, 70

negative ranks, and 35 positive ranks out of 217 responses. This is an indicator that the

responses are rather close. The table also shows the average number of negative and

positive ranks and the sum of positive and negative ranks. Below the table are footnotes

that denote how the positive and negative ranks relate.

Limitations and Key Assumptions of the Methodology

To avoid familiarity with terms in the two sets of questions, different descriptive

phrasing of the eight elements of successful remote work in the Pre-Information Survey

and the Post-Information Survey was deployed. This is to offset the potential for

"anchoring" which is discussed in more detail below. The limitations of time,

instantaneous assessment, randomness of participants, and anchoring are addressed in

order.

Time is the greatest limitation to this research project. Participants are asked to make

an instant assessment on a new technology as opposed to the longitudinal effect of

implementing the software in a remote work environment and examining the impact over

time, measuring certain variables that are monitored for improvement or lack thereof.

The author attempted to connect to actual users of the Workforce Performance

Management Systems (WPMS) through the software providers. Over a period of two and

one-half years attempts were made to access the clients of the software companies, to no

90
avail. A research prospectus was sent to executives of the two top WPMS software

creators. Neither company would allow access to customers, approve the research

process, or allow use of the company materials. Therefore, the researcher has focused on

the strengths of the training/information model or pedagogical approach, which tends to

measure the impact of current learning applied to the known current work environment

into the analysis of the experiment.

Participants were random as to employment and industry types versus keying the

research on one company or industry. This will make the research less marketable. The

researcher assumes that the accumulations of demographic data taken during the delivery

of the instrument will supply some unofficial details that will encourage further more

marketable research in the future. Further employment of the demographic data could

provide a welcome multiple regression analysis for future study to show interest based on

industry and demographic profiles in remote work, based on WPMS applications.

Anchoring or focalism is a limitation of this pre/post model. This refers to the

tendency of the participant to rely to heavily or anchor on one trait or piece of

information (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). In this case, anchoring can be an issue since

the participant took the post survey such a short time after the pre survey. The researcher

expects to offset this potential by dividing the Information/Education Element into eight

parts and moving the participant quickly through the process. The length of this element

will also require ten minutes, in order to cause a time delay between the pre and post

survey. The separation of the pre/post survey instrument should offset this issue

somewhat. The researcher has divided the sixteen-question survey into two parts, giving

eight questions unique to the pre survey and eight questions unique to the post survey.

91
 Summary Statement of the Methodology

This chapter has explained the methods used in this quantitative comparison of

the pre-education of WPMS and the post-education positive/negative impact on the

interest in remote work environments. The purpose in using the eight elements as they

relate to successful remote work environments is assigned to the literature noted in the

previous chapter. The next chapter presents the results obtained with the comparison of

the pre/post survey results.

92
 Chapter 4: Data Analysis

The objective of this research was to apply information about a type of software

product (Workforce Performance Management Systems—WPMS), which appears to

provide the eight elements of successful remote work (Communication/Technology,

Trust/Control System, Consistency, Input, Rules Defined, Evaluation,

Feedback/Motivation, and Succession/Support) to a sample population of working adults.

This research entailed three steps. First, the sample population was asked to consider

their current knowledge worker environment in relation to the eight elements listed above

in a Pre-Information Survey and then evaluate their willingness to participate in remote

work. The evaluation was measured via a Likert Scale from 1 to 7, with 7 being the Most

Willing to participate in remote work under the current employment environment. Each

participant was asked eight questions which were related to one of the eight elements.

This part of the process is referred to as Ql through Q8.

The second step involved the participant reading an information statement about the

WPMS solution, which provided documentation as to the software's relationship to the

eight elements listed above. Each statement about one of the eight elements was

followed by a specific application to the general knowledge worker environment. This

application related the software to each of the eight elements then suggested how that

element of successful work might affect implementation of the WPMS solution.

Finally, the participant was expected to consider the hypothetical application of

the WPMS solution to their current work environment. This application was encouraged

by the use of a question that posed the hypothesis that if this WPMS solution were

93
applied to the participant's current work environment how would this solution impact the

participant's willingness to engage in a remote work environment. This Post-Information

Survey was considered a "Training" process involving the relationship of WPMS

solutions to the remote work environment potential within the participant's current

workplace. This process is referred to as Tl through T8.

Division of Hypothesis Test into Eight Elements

The logical order of the analysis is based on the eight elements of successful

remote work as they were provided through the survey taken by all participants. The

eight elements are listed below:

Communication/Technology - Questions 1 and 9

Trust/Control System - Questions 2 and 10

Consistency - Questions 3 and 11

Input - Questions 4 and 12

Rules Defined - Questions 5 and 13

Evaluation - Questions 6 and 14

Feedback/Motivation - Questions 7 and 15

Succession/Support - Questions 8 and 16

These elements are the focus of the Pre-Information survey (referred to as Q1-Q8)

and the focus of the Post-Information survey (T1-T8) given after each training element.

94
 Element Analysis

In this section, each of the eight elements is stated, and the questions from the

both the Pre-Information Survey (Q1-Q8) and the Post-Information Survey (T1-T8) are

provided to aid the reader in gaining the perspective of the participant. The participant

was asked both questions from each element with the information (Training) provided

prior to the Training Question. The following Likert Scale was provided to the

participant to guide their evaluation of their willingness to engage in remote work, before

and after the Training.

Table 4.1

Likert Scale evaluates willingness to consider engaging in a remote work environment.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
<4 • — •
Most Unwilling Unwilling Disinterested Indifferent Interested Willing Most Willing

Willingness to Consider Working in a Remote Work Environment

The participant was asked to consider their current work environment with and

without the theoretic availability of Workforce Performance Management Systems

(WPMS). The Training Question sought to determine if there was a significant change in

the Likert Scale score determined by the participant. The analysis involved the

determination of statistical significance in the difference between the two (pre/post)

Likert Scale scores.

95
Element #1 Analysis (Ql Tl - Communication/Technology)

Question #1 (Ql) - Based on the ability to communicate with peers and supervisors from
any location, in the current work environment, how would you rank your willingness to
work remotely or allow offsite work to take place, regularly?

Question #9 or Training Question #1 (Tl) - Based on the importance of communication

in a remote work environment...
> Workforce Performance Management Systems (WPMS) provide a software solution to
communicate personnel performance.
> WPMS provides a technology-driven (web-based) communication tool for all parties
involved in measurement, maintenance, and reporting of workforce performance.

Question: If this functionality of WPMS were applied to your current workplace, how-
would you rate your willingness to work remotely or allow your direct reports to work
out of the office on a regular basis?

Test Tables

The Wilcoxon Signed Ranks (WSR) test output contains two tables—the

Descriptive Table and the Ranks Table (Table 4.2). The Descriptive Table contains all

statistics that are required to calculate the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks tests. The sample size

and the sum of ranks are included with the mean rank, which helps with the interpretation

of the data.

96
Table 4.2 Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test

Descriptive Statistics

Percentiles
N Mean Std. Delation Mnimum Maximum 25th 50th (Median) 75th

CommTech Q1 217 5J63 1.457 1 7 6J3D eno 7.00

Comm Tech T1 217 538 1.499 1 7 5 DO 6D0 7.00

Ranks

N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks

Comm TechTI Comm Nsgati^e Ranks 70" 53.48 3743.50

Tech Q1
Poati-Me Ranks 35" 52.04 1821.50
c
Ties n2

Total 217

a. Comm T e c h T I < CommTech Q1

b. Comm Tech T 1 > Comm Tech 01

c. CommTech T1 = CommTech CM

Test Statistics 6

CommTech T1 -
CommTech Q1

z -3529"

A y n p . Sig.(2-Qiled) .001

a. Based on positive ranks.

b. VWcoxon Signed Ranks Test

The Wilcox Sign test (though not as powerful as the WSR) answers the question

if the difference between the first survey and the training survey, and whether the

difference is significant from zero. In addition, this test provides evidence of the

probability of whether the observed difference in mean ranks can also be found in the

general population. This is the information contained in the Test Statistics Table of the

Wilcoxon Sign test (Table 4.10) and the WSR, which contains the z-value and

significance test or p-value (Table 4.2).

97
Explanation of Results

The results from the Descriptives Table illustrate the differences between the two

surveys answered by each participant and how their answers to the Post-Education

Survey or Training Question differ from the Pre-Education Survey. The Quartiles, Mean,

and Median comparison displays the common answers (scores) from the two surveys

provided by the same participant for Ql Tl (see the questions and training above). The

Ql mean (pre survey) is 5.63 while the Tl mean (post survey) is lower at 5.38. The

Percentiles on this element are identical at all quartiles at 5.00 (25th Quartile), 6.00

(Median), and 7.00 (75th Quartile). Since the responses in both surveys are rather high in

the 7-point scale, it is no surprise that the data is left skewed, as was discussed in Chapter

3, above.

Ranks Test

According to the Ranks Test section of Table 4.2 there are 112 tied ranks, 70

negative ranks, and 35 positive ranks out of 217 responses. This is an indicator that the

responses are rather close. The table also shows the average number of negative and

positive ranks and the sum of positive and negative ranks. Below the table are footnotes

that denote how the positive and negative ranks relate.

If one were to look up the significance of Wilcoxon's test by hand, we would take

the lowest value of the two types of ranks, so our test value would be the number of

negative ranks (e.g. 1). However, this value can be converted to a z score, and this is

what SPSS does. The advantage of this approach is that it allows exact significance

values to be calculated based on the response distribution. This table tells us that the

98
statistic is based on the negative ranks. Therefore, we might conclude that after

considering the implementation of Workforce Performance Management Systems in the

current workplace participants were less likely to be interested in remote work

environments in relation to WPMS as a communications technology.

We can see from the table's legend that 70 participants had a higher pre-survey

score than after the training (Comm Tech Tl < Comm Tech Ql). However, 35

participants had a higher post-survey score after training (Comm Tech Tl > Comm Tech

Ql). In fact, 112 participants offered the same value before and after the training (Comm

Tech Tl = Comm Tech Ql). This test takes the mean score of the negative ranks (53.48)

and positive ranks (52.04), then sums the ranks. The negative ranks sum would require

the mean of 53.48 (negative ranks mean) * 70 (number of negative ranks) to arrive at

3743.50 for the sum of ranks. This is compared to the positive sum of ranks of 35 postive

ranks * 52.04 ( mean of the positive ranks) to equal the sum of positive ranks of 1821.50.

It appears that there is quite a difference between the negative and positive sum of ranks.

Test Statistics

By examining the Test Statistics table (Table 4.2) we can discover whether these

changes, due to introduction of the availability of Workforce Performance Management

Systems (WPMS) as a communication technology, led overall to a statistically significant

difference in survey scores. Looking for the Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) value, which in this

case is 0.001, one discovers the p value for the test.

In statistics, the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test is denoted by the test statistic T,

although SPSS reports the z statistic, instead. The z value indicates the number of

99
standard deviation units that the was sample from the population mean. The z statistic for

Ql Tl is -3.229. This z statistic is based on the positive ranks, as noted by the footnotes.

We should conclude that when WPMS is introduced as a possible

Communication/Technology solution, there was a significant decline in willingness to

engage in remote work. Thus, the null hypothesis (Hlo) is rejected since the p-value <

0.05, with the confidence interval of 0.95. Since there was a decline, not an increase in

the mean score of the Tl component of the Ql Tl process, the HI A hypothesis is also

rejected.

Interpretation of Findings

The Wilcoxon signed rank test shows that the observed difference between both

measurements is significant. The results indicated a significant difference, z = -3.229,

p < .001. The mean of the ranks in favor of the Pre-Education Survey was 53.48, while

the mean of the ranks of the Post-Education was 52.04. We can conclude that since the

difference is significant between Ql and Tl, the instruction contained in Tl negatively

influenced the participants' interest in remote work environments, thus no enhancement

to consider remote work was recognized. The Hlo and the HI A are both rejected.

Element #2 Analysis (Q2 T2 - Trust/Control System)

Question #2 (Q2) Based on the current work environment's ability to create and
maintain control mechanisms to encourage personnel to maintain and adjust to agreed
performance goals, how would you rank your willingness to work (or allow work)
outside of the office on a regular basis?

100
Question #10 or Training #2 (T2): Based on the awareness that people will trust in a
control system before trusting another person...
> Workforce Performance Management Systems provide tools that require, track, report,
and adjust to the agreed performance control expectations.
> Agreed measurements and outcomes are aligned with corporate goals and shared with
all operative parties, as maintained and determined by management.
> Performance is consistently tracked by management and reported to all parties.

Question: If this functionality of WPMS were applied to the current workplace how
would you rank your willingness to work remotely, or allow work to take place out of the
office on a regular basis?

Comparing the two surveys (Table 4.3) answered by the same participant for Q2

T2 the Q2 mean (pre survey) is 5.46 while the T2 mean (post survey) is lower at 5.30.

The Percentiles on this element are identical on the 5.00 (25l Quartile) and 6.00

(Median), but the (75th Quartile) reflects a decline from Q2 at 7.00 to T2 at 6.50.

Ranks Test

As noted in the Ranks Test sections of Table 4.3 there are 105 tied ranks, 65

negative ranks, and 47 positive ranks out of 217 responses. From the table's legend note

that 65 participants had a higher pre-survey score compared to after the training

(Trust/Control T2 < Trust/Control Q2). However, 47 participants had a higher post-

survey score after training (Trust/Control T2 > Trust/Control Q2). The remaining 105

participants offered the same value before and after the training (Trust/Control T2 =

Trust/Control Q2).

The mean score of the negative ranks after Tl - Ql is (57.53) and positive ranks

after T2 - Q2 is (55.07), are multiplied by the number of negative ranks (65) and the

number of positive ranks (47) to arrive at 3739.50 and 2588.50, respectively. These

scores are much closer than in Ql Tl.

101
Table 4.3

Descriptive Statistics

Percentiles
N Mean Std Deviation Minimum Maximum 25th 50th (Median) 75th
TrusV ControlQ2 217 5 46 1 500 1 7 5 00 6 00 7 00
Trust/Control T2 217 5 30 1 509 1 7 5 00 6 00 6 50

Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test

Ranks

N Mean Rank > Sum of Ranks

Trust/Control T2 - Negative Ranks 65* 57 53 | 3739 50
TrustiControlQ2 D ™ * , ^ •Ranks
Positive i 47b 55 07 I 2588 50
Ties 105°
Total 217 I

a Trust/Control T2 < Trust/ControlQ2

b Trust/Control T2 > TrustfControlQ2
c Trust/Control T2 = TrustfContiolQ 2

Test Statisticsb

Trust/Control
T2-
Trustt Control
Q2
z -1 744^
Asymp Sig (2 tailed) 081
a Based on positwe ranks
b Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test

Test Statistics

The Test Statistics table (Table 4.3) can provide a measure of whether these

changes, due to introduction of the availability of Workforce Performance Management

Systems (WPMS), led overall to a statistically significant difference in survey scores.

The Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) value is 0.081, thus the p value for this element > 0.05, the

selected confidence interval, and the z statistic for Q2 T2 is -1.744. We cannot conclude

that when WPMS attributes are described in the training survey and introduced as a

possible Trust/Control system in the current work environment, there was a decline or

increase in the willingness to engage in remote work because of the p value (0.081) being

102
higher than the confidence interval. The difference between the two means of the

pre/post data for this element is insignificant.

Interpretation of Findings

The Wilcoxon signed rank test shows that the observed difference between both

measurements is not significant, with the z = -1.744, and/? = .081, which is > 0.05. The

mean of the ranks in favor of the Pre-Education Survey was 57.53, while the mean of the

ranks of the Post-Education Survey was 55.07. We can conclude that because the

difference is not significant between Q2 and T2, the WPMS instruction contained in T2

did not enhance the participants' interest in remote work environments at their current

workplace. We, therefore, fail to reject Hlo, and we reject H1 A .

Element #3 Analysis (Q3 T3 - Consistency)

Question #3 (Q3) - Based on the current work environment's ability to offer sure and
focused feedback between employees and management, how would you rank your
willingness to work (or allow work) out of the office on a regular basis?

Question #11 or Training #3 (T3) - Based on the importance of the desired performance
goals of the workforce being tied to the corporate mission...
> Workforce Performance Management Systems allow for direct access to pre-
programmed performance standards (web-based) developed by management and related
to corporate mission standards.
> WPMS provide access and comparison to performance standards to allow for inner-
organizational and cross-organizational goal alignment.

Question: If this functionality of WPMS were applied to the current workplace how
would you rank your willingness to work remotely or allow work to take place out of the
office on a regular basis?

Comparing the two surveys (Table 4.4) answered by the same participant for Q3

T3 the Q3 mean (pre survey) is 5.35 while the T3 mean (post survey) is lower at 5.34.

103
The Percentiles on this element are identical on the 5.00 (25 Quartile) and 6.00

(Median), but the (75th Quartile) reflect a decline from Q3 at 7.00 to T3 at 6.00.

Ranks Test

According to the Ranks Test sections of Table 4.4 there are 111 tied ranks, 56

negative ranks, and 50 positive ranks out of 217 responses. From the table's legend note

that 56 participants had a higher pre-survey score compared to after the training

(Consistency T3 < Consistency Q3). Note that 50 participants had a higher post-survey

score after training (Consistency T3 > Consistency Q3). The remaining 111 participants

offered the same value before and after the training (Consistency T3 = Consistency Q3).

The mean score of the negative ranks (50.47) and positive ranks (56.89), are

multiplied by the number of negative ranks (56) and the number of positive ranks (50) to

arrive at 2826.50 and 2844.50, respectively. These scores are much closer than in any of

the previous results.

Test Statistics

The Test Statistics table (Table 4.4) can provide a measure of whether these

changes, due to introduction of the availability of Workforce Performance Management

Systems (WPMS) in the current work environment, led overall to a statistically

significant difference in survey scores. Looking at the Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) value, we

see 0.977, the p value for this element > 0.05, the selected confidence interval.

The z statistic for Q3 T3 is -0.29. This z statistic is based on the negative ranks,

as noted by the footnotes. We should conclude that when WPMS attributes are described

104
in the training survey, introduced as a possible improvement in Consistency from the

current working environment, there was not a significant increase in willingness to

engage in remote work.

Table 4.4

Descriptive Statistics

Percentiles
N Mean Std Deviation Minimum Maximum 25th 50th (Median) 75th
Consistency Q3 217 5 35 1 532 1 7 5 00 6 00 7 00
Consistency T3 217 5 34 1 438 1 7 5 00 6 00 6 00

Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test

Ranks

N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks

Consistency T3 - Negative Ranks 56* 50 47 2826 50
Consistency Q3 P o s * w e Ranks
50" 56 89 2844 50
Ties 111 c
Total 217
a Consistency T3 < Consistency Q3
b Consistency T3 > Consistency Q3
c Consistency T3= Consistency Q3

Test Statisticsb

Consistency
T3-
Consistency
Q3
z -029a
Asymp Sig (2-tailed) 977
a Based on negative ranks
b Wilcoxon Signed RanksTest

Interpretation of Findings

The Wilcoxon signed rank test shows that the observed difference between both

measurements is not significant. With the z = -0.029, and/? = 0.977, which is > 0.05.

The mean of the ranks in favor of the Pre-Education Survey was 50.47, while the mean of

the ranks of the Post-Education Survey was 56.89. We can conclude that the difference

105
is not significant between Q3 and T3, and the WPMS instruction contained in T3 did not

enhance or decrease the participants' interest in remote work environments in the current

workplace, beyond chance. We, therefore, fail to reject Hlo, and we reject H1 A .

Element #4 Analysis (04 T4 - Input)

Question #4 (Q4) - Based on the freedom of employee's to choose their schedule and set
goals of productivity within the current work environment, how would you rank your
willingness to work (or allow work) out of the office on a regular basis?

Question #12 or Training #4(T4) - Based on the importance of input from all parties in
the performance management process...
> Workforce Performance Management Systems collect input from employees and
management in preparing performance standards.
> WPMS electronically stores and applies collected input to desired performance
measurements.
> Employee/Management input is automatically viewed when analyzing individual
performance.

Question: If this functionality of WPMS were applied to your current work environment,
how would you rank your willingness to work remotely or allow work to take place out
of the office on a regular basis?

Comparing the two surveys (Table 4.5) answered by the same participant for Q4

T4 the Q3 mean (pre survey) is 5.40 while the T4 mean (post survey) is lower at 5.36.

The Percentiles on this element are identical on the 5.00 (25th Quartile) and 6.00

(Median), but the (75th Quartile) reflect a decline from Q4 at 7.00 to T4 at 6.00.

Ranks Test

As noted in the Ranks Test sections of Table 4.5 there are 111 tied ranks, 58

negative ranks, and 48 positive ranks out of 217 responses. From the table's legend note

that 58 participants had a higher pre-survey score compared to after the training (Input T4

106
< Input Q4). However, 48 participants had a higher post-survey score after training

(Input T4 > Input Q4). The remaining 111 participants offered the same value before and

after the training (Input T4 = Input Q4). The mean score of the negative ranks (51.07)

and positive ranks (56.44), are multiplied by the number of negative ranks (58) and the

number of positive ranks (48) to arrive at 2962.00 and 2709.00, respectively.

Table 4.5

Descriptive Statistics

Percentiles
N Mean t Std Deviation Minimum Maximum 25th 50th ("Median) 75th
Input Q4 217 5 40 1 613 1 7 5 00 6 00 7 00
Input T4 217 5 36 1 428 1 7 5 00 6 00 6 00

Wilcoxon Signed Ranks T e s t

Ranks

N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks

Input T 4 - Input Q4 Negative Ranks 58a 51 07 2962 00
Positwe Ranks 48t> 56 44 2709 00
Ties 111 c
Total 217
a l n p u t T 4 < 'nput Q4
P l n p u t T 4 > Input Q4
c Input T 4 - Input Q4

Test Statistics 15

Input T4 -
Input Q4
z - 411 *
Asymp Sig (2-tailed) 681
a Based on positree ranks
b Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test

Test Statistics

The Test Statistics table (Table 4.5) can provide a measure of whether these

changes, due to introduction of the availability of Workforce Performance Management

Systems (WPMS), led overall to a statistically significant difference in survey scores. The

107
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) value is 0.681, the p value for this element 0.681 > 0.05, since the

selected confidence interval is 95%.

The z statistic for Q4 T4 is -0.411. We should conclude that when WPMS

attributes are described in the training survey, introduced as a possible improvement in

Input from the current working environment, there was not a significant increase in

willingness to engage in remote work.

Interpretation of Findings

The Wilcoxon signed rank test shows that the observed difference between both

measurements is not significant. With the z = -0.411, and/? = 0.681, which is > 0.05.

The mean of the ranks in favor of the Pre-Education Survey was 51.07, while the mean of

the ranks of the Post-Education Survey was 56.44. We can conclude that the difference

is not significant between Q4 and T4, and the WPMS instruction contained in T4 did not

enhance or decrease the participants' interest in remote work environments, within the

current workplace, beyond chance. We, therefore, fail to reject Hlo, and we reject H1 A .

Element #5 Analysis (Q5 T5 - Rules Defined)

Question #5 (Q5) - Based on your current work environment's ability to articulate and
implement agreed work performance measurement, how would you rank your
willingness to work (or allow work) in a distributed (out of the office) environment on a
regular basis?

Question #13 or Training #5 (T5) - Based on the requirement that performance

measurements in a workplace must clearly be defined and understood by all operative
parties...
> Workforce Performance Management Systems provide electronic goals-based
competency models for measuring performance in relation to defined goals.
> Once compared to competency models, WPMS tools can provide a summary review to

108
all parties involved.

Question: If this functionality of WPMS were applied to the current workplace how
would you rank your willingness to work remotely or allow work to take place out of the
office on a regular basis?

Comparing the two surveys (Table 4.6) answered by the same participant for Q5

T5, the Q5 mean (pre survey) is 5.36 while the T5 mean (post survey) is lower at 5.36.

The Percentiles on this element are identical on the 5.00 (25th Quartile) and 7.00 (75th

Quartile), but the 6.00 (Median) reflect a decline from Q5 at 6.00 to T5 at 5.00.

Ranks Test

The Ranks Test sections of Table 4.6 denotes there are 110 tied ranks, 55 negative

ranks, and 52 positive ranks out of 217 responses. From the table's legend note that 55

participants had a higher pre-survey score compared to after the training (Rules Defined

T5 < Rules Defined Q5). However, 52 participants had a higher post-survey score after

training (Rules Defined T5 > Rules Defined Q5). The remaining 110 participants offered

the same value before and after the training (Rules Defined T5 = Rules Defined Q5).

The mean score of the negative ranks (51.56) and positive ranks (56.58), are multiplied

by the number of negative ranks (55) and the number of positive ranks (52) to arrive at

2836.00 and 2942.00, respectively.

Test Statistics

The Test Statistics table (Table 4.6) can provide a measure of whether these

changes, due to introduction of the availability of Workforce Performance Management

Systems (WPMS), led overall to a statistically significant difference in survey scores.

109
The Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) value is 0.864, thus the p value for this element > 0.05, the

selected confidence interval.

Table 4.6

Descriptive Statistics

Percentiles
N Mean Std Deviation Minimum Maximum 25th 50th (Median) 75th
Rules Defined Q5 217 5 36 1 491 1
7 5 00 6 00 7 00
Rules Defined T5 217 5 36 1 450 1 7 5 00 5 00 7 00

Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test

Ranks

N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks

Rules Defined T5 - Rules Negative Ranks 55a 51 56 2836 00
Defmed Q5
Positive Ranks 52" 56 58 2942 00
Ties 110c
Total 217
a Rules Defined T5 < Rules Defined Q5
b Rules Defined T5 > Rules Defined Q5
c Rules Defined T5 = Rules Defined Q5

Test Statistics"

Rules
Defined T5 -
Rules
Defined Q5
z -171a
Asymp Sig (2-tailed) 864
a Based on negative ranks
b VMIcoxon Signed Ranks Test

The z statistic for Q5 T5 is -0.171. This Z statistic is based on the negative ranks,

as noted by the footnotes. We should conclude that when WPMS attributes are described

in the training survey, introduced as a possible improvement in Rules Defined within the

current working environment, there was not a significant increase in willingness to

engage in remote work.

110
Interpretation of Findings

The Wilcoxon signed rank test shows that the observed difference between both

measurements is not significant, with the z = -0.171, andp = 0.864, which is > 0.05. The

mean of the ranks in favor of the Pre-Education Survey was 51.56, while the mean of the

ranks of the Post-Education Survey was 56.58. We can conclude that the difference is

not significant between Q5 and T5, and the WPMS instruction contained in T5 did not

enhance or decrease the participants' interest in remote work environments beyond

chance. We, therefore, fail to reject Hlo, and we reject H1A-

Element #6 Analysis (06 T6 - Evaluation)

Question #6 (Q6) - Based on the level of management awareness of personnel work

habits/ethic within the current work environment, how would you rank your willingness
to work remotely or allow work to be done offsite on a regular basis?

Question #14 or Training #6 (T6) - Based on the awareness that assessment of the
performance of employees and management must be tied to key success criteria to
provide effective feed back...
> Workforce Performance Management Systems electronically provide detailed guidance
through the evaluation process.
> Self analysis and management review compare performance to the developed
standards, then shares the analysis with all operative parties.
> Legal scanning of all reviews is available through the WPMS to help avoid legal and
ethical issues in the evaluation/feedback process.

Question: If this functionality of WPMS were applied to your current work environment,
how would you rate your willingness to work out of the office (or allow work to take
place out of the office) on a regular basis?

Comparing the two surveys (Table 4.7) answered by the same participant for Q6

T6 the Q6 mean (pre survey) is 5.31 while the T6 mean (post survey) is lower at 5.29.

Ill
The Percentiles on this element are identical on the 5.00 (25 Quartile) and 6.00

(Median), but the (75th Quartile) reflect a decline from Q6 at 7.00 to T6 at 6.00.

Ranks Test

The Ranks Test sections of Table 4.7 there are 109 tied ranks, 52 negative ranks,

and 56 positive ranks out of 217 responses. From the table's legend note that 52

participants had a higher pre-survey score compared to after the training (Evaluation T6 <

Evaluation Q6). However, 56 participants had a higher post-survey score after training

(Evaluation T6 > Evaluation Q6). The remaining 109 participants offered the same

valuation before and after the training (Evaluation T6 = Evaluation Q6). The mean score

of the negative ranks (57.47) and positive ranks (51.74), are multiplied by the number of

negative ranks (52) and the number of positive ranks (56) to arrive at 2988.50 and

2897.50, respectively.

Test Statistics

The Test Statistics table (Table 4.7) can provide a measure of whether these

changes, due to introduction of the availability of Workforce Performance Management

Systems (WPMS), led to a statistically significant difference in survey scores. The

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) value, 0.886, is the p value for this element > 0.05, the selected

confidence interval.

112
Table 4.7

Descriptive Statistics

Percentiles
N Mean Std Deviation Minimum Maximum 25th 50th (Median) 75th
Evaluation Q 6 217 5 31 1 528 1 7 5 00 6 00 7 00
Evaluation T6 217 5 29 1 485 1 7 5 00 6 00 6 00

Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test

Ranks

N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks

Evaluation T6 - Evaluation Negative Ranks 52^ 57 47 2988 50
0 6
Positwe Ranks 56^ 51 74 2897 50
Ties 109°
Total 217
a Evaluation T6 < Evaluation Q6
b Evaluation T6 > Evaluation Q6
c Evaluation TB= Evaluation Q6

Test Statistics15

Evaluation T6
- Evaluation
Q6
z -143^
Asyrnp Sig (2-tailed) 886
a Based on positive ranks
b Wilcoxon Signed RanksTest

The Z statistic for Q6 T6 is -0.143. This Z statistic is based on the positive ranks,

as noted by the footnotes. We should conclude that when WPMS attributes are described

in the training survey, introduced as a possible improvement in Evaluation from the

current working environment, there was not a significant increase or decrease in

willingness to engage in remote work.

113
Interpretation of Findings

The Wilcoxon signed rank test shows that the observed difference between both

measurements is not significant, with the z = -0.143, and/? = 0.886, which is > 0.05. The

mean of the ranks in favor of the Pre-Education Survey was 57.47, while the mean of the

ranks of the Post-Education Survey was 51.74. We can conclude that the difference is

not significant between Q6 and T6, and the WPMS instruction contained in T6 did not

enhance or decrease the participants' interest in remote work environments within the

current workplace, beyond chance. We, therefore, fail to reject Hlo, and we reject HI A-

Element #7 Analysis (Q7 T7 - Motivation/Feedback)

Question #7 (Q7) - Based on the current work environment's ability to offer regular
evaluations of an employee's work, based on agreed performance measurements , how
would you rank your willingness to work outside (or allow work to be done outside) the
office on a regular basis?

Question #15 or Training #7 (T7) - Based on the awareness that employee/management

feedback is essential to create positive/negative reinforcement of existing performance
standards...
> By providing electronic feedback and motivation tools Workforce Performance
Management Systems encourage behavioral change by advising personnel of current
performance and quantifying that performance when compared to agreed expectations.
> 360-degree reviews can be automatically populated to analyze employee/management
performance and key compensation decisions to performance achievement.
> Gap analysis from supervisor input provides clear view of areas of improvement and
the time constraints involved.

Question: If this functionality of WPMS were applied to the current workplace, how
would you rank your willingness to work remotely or allow work out of the office on a
regular basis?

Comparing the two surveys (Table 4.8) answered by the same participant for Q7

T7 the Q7 mean (pre survey) is 5.35 while the T7 mean (post survey) is lower at 5.30.

114
The Percentiles on this element are identical on the 5.00 (25r Quartile) and 7.00 (75th

Quartile), but the 6.00 (Median) reflect an increase from Q7 at 5.00 to T7 at 6.00.

Ranks Test

The Ranks Test sections of Table 4.8 there are 119 tied ranks, 51 negative ranks,

and 47 positive ranks out of 217 responses. From the table's legend note that 51

participants had a higher pre-survey score compared to after the training

(Feedback/Motivation T7 < Feedback/Motivation Q7). However, 47 participants had a

higher post-survey score after training (Feedback/Motivation T7 > Feedback/Motivation

Q7). The remaining 119 participants offered the same value before and after the training

(Feedback/Motivation T7 = Feedback/Motivation Q7) The mean score of the negative

ranks (49.01) and positive ranks (50.03), are multiplied by the number of negative ranks

(51) and the number of positive ranks (47) to arrive at 2499.50 and 2351.50, respectively.

Test Statistics

The Test Statistics table (Table 4.8) provides a measure of whether these changes,

due to introduction of the availability of Workforce Performance Management Systems

(WPMS), led to a statistically significant difference in survey scores. The Asymp. Sig.

(2-tailed) value, is 0.787, the p value for this element > 0.05, the selected confidence

interval.

The z statistic for Q7 T7 is -0.270. This Z statistic is based on the positive ranks,

as noted by the footnotes. We should conclude that when WPMS attributes are described

in the training survey, introduced as a possible improvement in Motivation/Feedback

115
from the current working environment, there was not a significant increase or decrease in

willingness to engage in remote work.

Table 4.8

Descriptive Statistcs

I Percentiles
N Mean Std Deviation Minimum Maximum 25th 50th (Median) 75th
Motv/FbackG7 217 5 35 1 492 1 7 5Q0 5 00 7 00
Motv/FbackT7 217 5 30 1 533 1 7 | 5 00 6 00 7 00

Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test

Ranks

N Mean Rank I Sum of Ranks

Motv/FbackT7- Negative Ranks 51' 49 01 ' 2499 50
Motv/FbackQ7 Dn^^ D,„I«
Positive Ranks 47" 50 03 j 2351 50
Ties 119°
Total 217
a Motv/FbackT7<MoWFbackQ7
b Motv/FbackT7>Motv/FbackQ7
c Motv/FbackT7 = Motv/FhackQ7

Test Statisticsb

MoMFbackT7

Motv/FbackQ7
z -270 a
As^rnp Sig (2-tailed) 787
a Based on positive ranks
b Wilcoxon Signed RanksTest

Interpretation of Findings

The Wilcoxon signed rank test shows that the observed difference between both

measurements is not significant, with the z = -0.270, andp = 0.787, which is > 0.05. The

mean of the ranks in favor of the Pre-Education Survey was 49.01, while the mean of the

ranks of the Post-Education Survey was 50.03. We can conclude that the difference is

not significant between Q7 and T7, and the WPMS instruction contained in T7 did not

116
enhance or decrease the participants' interest in remote work environments with the

current workplace. We, therefore, fail to reject Hlo, and we reject H1A-

Element #8 Analysis (Q8 T8 - Succession/Support)

Question #8 (Q8) - Based on the current work environment's ability to manase employee
promotion/succession within the company, based on agreed performance standards, how
would you rank your willingness to work (or allow work to be done) outside the office on
a regular basis?

Question #16 or Training #8 (T8) - Based on the need for support from all successive
levels of management in an effort to groom internal candidates for promotion...
> Succession forecasting is available by electronically comparing/analyzing candidate
performance with position-skill requisites.
> Individuals can be selected and ranked according to programmed key position success
skills they have demonstrated.
> Succession modeling can allow management and employees to design success
programs for valid promotion candidates.
> Compensation increases can be directly linked to performance standards.
> External candidates can be entered and compared to internal position performance-
success indicators.

Question: If this functionality of WPMS were applied to the current workplace how
would you rank your willingness to work remotely or allow work out of the office on a
regular basis?

Comparing the two surveys (Table 4.9) answered by the same participant for Q8

T8, the Q8 mean (pre survey) is 5.15 while the T8 mean (post survey) is higher at 5.25.

The Percentiles on this element are identical on the 5.00 (Median), but the (25th Quartile)

has a higher post survey (4.00 compared to 4.50). The (75l Quartile) reflect an increase

as well from Q8 at 6.00 to T8 at 7.00.

Ranks Test

The Ranks Test sections of Table 4.9 expresses that there are 105 tied ranks, 45

negative ranks, and 67 positive ranks out of 217 responses. According to the table's

117
legend note that 45 participants had a higher pre-survey score compared to after the

training (Support/Succession T8 < Support/Succession Q8). However, 67 participants

had a higher post-survey score after training (Support/Succession T8 >

Support/Succession Q8). The remaining 105 participants offered the same value before

and after the training (Support/Succession T8 = Support/Succession Q8).

The mean score of the negative ranks (60.24) and positive ranks (53.99), are multiplied

by the number of negative ranks (45) and the number of positive ranks (67) to arrive at

2711.00 and 3617.00, respectively.

Table 4.9

Descriptive Statistics

Percentiles
N Mean ' Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum 25th 50th (Median) 75th
Succession Q8 217 515 j 1 536 1 7 4.00 5.00 6 00
Succession T8 217 5.25 ! 1 535 1 7 4.50 5 00 7.00

Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test

Ranks

N Mean Rank | Sum of Ranks

Succession T8 - Negative Ranks 45 J 60.24 | 2711.00
Succession Q8 D„™H,„ D ™ I ^
Positive Ranks 67 b 53.99 ; 3617.00
Ties 105°
Total 217 t
a. Succession T8 < Succession Q8
b. Succession T8 > Succession Q 8
c. Succession T8 = Succession Q8

Test Statistics15

Succession
T8-
Succession
Q8
z -1.352^
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) 176
a. Based on negative ranks.
b. Wilcoxon Signed RanksTest

118
Test Statistics

The Test Statistics table (Table 4.9) can provide a measure of whether these

changes, due to introduction of the availability of Workforce Performance Management

Systems (WPMS), led to a statistically significant difference in survey scores. Looking at

the Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) value, is 0.176, the p value for this element > 0.05, the selected

confidence interval.

The Z statistic for Q8 T8 is -1.352. This Z statistic is based on the negative ranks,

as noted by the footnotes. We should conclude that when WPMS attributes are described

in the training survey, introduced as a possible improvement in Support/Succession

within the current working environment, there was not a significant increase or decrease

in willingness to engage in remote work.

Signs Test

The researcher wishes to note that the Signs Test, though not as powerful in

relating a probability factor compared to the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks (WSR) test,

expresses a significant p value in Q8T8. According to the Signs test in Table 4.10, the

Asymp. Sig. (2-Tailed) value, which is the p value, is 0.047. Since this p value is < 0.05

the Signs test would show the only significant increase in willingness to consider remote

work in the entire eight-element analysis process. Yet, since the WSR is the higher

probability power test, the information in Table 4.9 and the Test Statistics analysis noted

below, should provide the more accurate results.

119
 Interpretation of Findings

The Wilcoxon signed rank test shows that the observed difference between both

measurements is not significant, with the z = -1.352, andp = 0.176, which is > 0.05. The

mean of the ranks in favor of the Pre-Education Survey was 60.24, while the mean of the

ranks of the Post-Education Survey was 53.99. According to the more powerful

Wilcoxon Signed Ranks, we can conclude that the difference is not significant between

Q8 and T8, and the WPMS instruction contained in T8 did not enhance or decrease the

participants' interest in remote work environments within the current workplace, beyond

chance. We, therefore, fail to reject H1Q, and we reject H1 A .

Table 4.10 Signs Test of Q8 T8

Frequencies

N
Succession T8- Negative Differencesa 45
Succession Q8
Positive Differences'1 67
Ties0 105
Total 217
a. Succession T8 < Succession Q8
b. Succession T8 > Succession Q8
c. Succession T8 = Succession Q8

Test Statistics3

Succession
T8-
Succession
Q8
z -1.984
As^mp. Sig. (2-tailed) .047
a. Sign Test

120
Generalization of Results

Using the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test, all but one of the eight elements failed to

reject the null hypothesis. Ql Tl represented a significant decline from the Pre-

Information Survey and the Post-Information Survey. Part of this failure to reject the null

(except in Ql Tl) could be related to the fact that so many participants noted rather high

results on the Pre-Information Survey. This interest in remote work would be relevant to

the literature as it relates to employees ( Hoang et al, 2008; McNall et al, 2010; Hunton &

Norman, 2010 ). Employees are less likely to avoid coming to work, remain with the

same company due to the remote work option, and save time and money in traveling and

child care, theoretically (Moskowitz, 1995). Management appears to see the value of

remote work because of the potential to improve function and productivity (McNall, et al,

2010; Westfall, 1997b; Hoang et al, 2008; Major et al, 2008). With a high Pre-

Information Survey result and limited range in the standard Likert scale provided in this

study (range from 1 through 7), a highly significant increase in the Post-Information

Survey response could be difficult to achieve.

The previous explanation for the lack of increase in willingness to engage in

remote work, though, does not explain the decrease in the Post-Information Survey in

Q1T1. In Table 4.11 this summary of the mean scores from Ql Tl through Q8 T8

reflects that the Post-Information mean drops (though not statistically significant) in five

of eight elements from the Pre-Information Survey (e.g. Q2 T2, Q3 T3, Q4 T4, Q6 T6,

and Q7 T7). Furthermore, there is the significant drop noted in Ql Tl. The two

increases in the Post-Information Survey (Q5 T5 and Q8 T8) are not significant

according to the most powerful nonparametric test (WSR). This seems to indicate that

121
after reading the training material (applied to the current workplace), prior to each

element in six of the eight Pre-Information Survey questions, there was some decrease in

the willingness to engage in remote work based on the features of the Workforce

Performance Management System (WPMS) software. Only Ql Tl offered a statistically

significant decrease, referring to the 95% probability that the training material (WPMS

feature) had an impact in the decision. The other five (insignificant) decreases could be

due to some other factor or chance.

Table 4.11 Means Scores

Element Pre-Information Post-Information

Mean Mean

Communication/Technology

Q1T1
5.63 5.39
Trust/Control System Q2

T2 5.46 5.31

Consistency Q3 T3 5.347 5.342

Input Q4T4 5.39 5.37

Rules Defined Q5 T5 5.36 5.37

Evaluation Q6 T6 5.31 5.27

Feedback/Motivation Q7 T7 5.35 5.31

Succession/Support Q8 T8 5.15 5.26

122
 The Ranks Test illustrated in Table 4.12 also confirms the decrease from the Pre-

Information Survey results to the Post-Information Survey results. In the Ranks Test

Report the Negative Ranks are derived from subtracting the scores in the Pre-Information

Survey from the Post-Information Survey (e.g. Tl - Ql). If the Post-Information score is

higher in value than the Pre-Information score, the result would naturally be positive (e.g.

+5 - +3 = +2). On the other hand, if the Post-Information score reflects a decrease from

the Pre-Information score, a negative value would be the difference (e.g. +5 - +7 = -2).

With this in mind we see the Negative Ranks summed (the multiplication of the Mean

Rank by the N or number of Negative Ranks) higher than the Positive Ranks in half of

the Ranks Test Report (Table 4.12). Only elements 3, 5, 6, and 8 (T3 - Q3, T5 - Q5, T6 -

Q6, and T8 - Q8) have higher Positive Ranks.

The largest number in all of the Ranks Test Report, though, is the number of Ties.

In the 217 sample population, the Ties vary between 105 and 119. This refers to the fact

that the respondent failed to prefer any change in the willingness to engage in remote

work after the WPMS training material was introduced. If the participant favored remote

work in their current workplace, they saw nothing in the WPMS solution to enhance or

decrease their willingness to engage in remote work—in the current workplace. If they

did not favor remote work in relation to the eight elements of successful remote work (in

their current workplace), they failed to sense anything related to the WMPS solution that

enhanced or decreased their willingness to engage in remote work.

123
Table 4.12 Ranks Test Report

N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks

a
CommTech T1 - Comrn Negative Ranks 70 53.48 3743.50
T e c h Q1
Positive Ranks 35 b 52.04 1821.50
Ties c
112

N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks

Comrn Tech T1 - Com. . Total 217
Trust/Control T2 - Negative Ranks 65 d 57.53 3739.50
TrustfControlQ2 pos|tive Rgnks
47e 55 07 2588.50
f
Ties 105
Total 217
Consistency T3 - Negative Ranks 56B 50.47 2826.50
Consistency Q3 positjve Ranks h
50 56.89 2844.50
Ties j
111
Total 217
Input T4-Input Q4 Negative Ranks 58J 51.07 2962.00
Positive Ranks k
48 56.44 2709.00
Ties 11 11
Total 217
Rules Defined T5 - Rules Negative Ranks 55 m 51.56 2836.00
Defined Q5 „ ... _ . n
52 56.58 2942.00
Positive Ranks
110°
Ties
217
Total
Evaluation T6 - Evaluation Negative Ranks 52P 57.47 2988.50
Positive Ranks 56^ 51.74 2897.50
Ties r
109
Total 217
Motv/FbackT7- Negative Ranks 51s 49.01 2499.50
Motv/FbackQ7 posjtive Ranks
47* 50.03 2351.50
Ties u
119
Total 217
Succession T8 - Negative Ranks 45 v 60.24 2711.00
Succession Q8 _ .... ._, . B7 w 53.99 3617.00
Positive Ranks
Ties 105*
Total 217

124
Main Sections of Research and Results in Relation to the Null Hypothesis

The results of the study in relation to each element are illustrated in Table 4.13,

and this illustration provides the findings in relation to the null hypothesis. The null

hypothesis is provided, again (from Chapter 3), below:

Hl 0 : Workforce performance management solutions have no relationship affecting the

willingness to engage in remote work.

Pre-information u = Post-information [i

We, therefore, fail to reject, and we reject.

HIA: Workforce performance management solutions are perceived as positively

affecting the willingness to engage in remote work.

Pre-information u < Post-information u

Table 4.13 Results of Hypothesis Test on Eight Elements of Successful Remote

Work Environments

Element # - Comparing Pre-information Result - Fail to Reject or Reject the

Survey (Qn) to Post-Information Survey (Tn) Null Hypothesis
Element #1 Communication/Technology Ql Tl Hlo is Rejected

HI A is Rejected

Element #2 Trust/Control System Q2 T2 Fail to Reject Hl 0

H1 A is Rejected

Element #3 Consistency Q3 T3 Fail to Reject Hl 0

HIA is Rejected

125
Element #4 Input Q4 T4 Fail to Reject Hl 0

HI A is Rejected

Element #5 Rules Defined Q5 T5 Fail to Reject Hlo

HI A is Rejected

Element #6 Evaluation Q6 T6 Fail to Reject Hl 0

HI A is Rejected

Element #7 Feedback/Motivation Q7 T7 Fail to Reject Hlo

HI A is Rejected

Element #8 Succession/Support Q8 T8 Fail to Reject Hlo

HI A is Rejected

The Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test applied to all eight elements (of successful

remote work) did not reflect a statistically significant increase in willingness to engage in

remote work in any of the eight elements, though Ql Tl showed a significant decrease

between the willingness to engage in remote work from Ql to Tl. Therefore, the null

hypothesis Hlo is rejected in Q1T1 by the research defined in this process, while the

other seven elements surveyed failed to reject the null. The data analysis could not

significantly determine, beyond any other potential entity (or chance), that the availability

of Workforce Performance Management Systems (as defined in the training material

provided in the Education Element) positively influenced a participants willingness to

engage in remote work as it related to the current workplace. Therefore, H1 A , is rejected

in all eight elements.

126
 Conclusion (Summary)

The eight elements of Communication/Technology, Trust/Control System,

Consistency, Input, Rules Defined, Evaluation, Feedback/Motivation, and

Succession/Support have been shown by the existing literature (Chapter 2) to be vital to

the success of remote work implementation. Workforce Performance Management

System (WPMS) solution provide significant components of the eight elements of

successful remote work. Yet, this test could not provide proof of the positive impact of

the WPMS as it relates to remote work willingness.

This research was not designed to seek cause and effect for this lack of

willingness to engage in remote work. Neither did this test provide a correlation between

any demographic or workplace environmental attributes that may have led to no

significant difference between the Pre-Information Survey and the Post-Information

Survey. This research can only conclude that (as tested) no significant positive increase

in willingness could be determined by the awareness of WPMS solutions as defined in

the training material provided in the survey instrument, rejecting H1 A . Hlo is rejected in

Q1T1 only (due to a significant decrease in the Post-Information Likert score), but the

final seven elements failed to reject the null. Ideas to further the relevance of this work

will be discussed in Chapter 5.

127
 Chapter 5: Summary of Results and Conclusion

The purpose of this chapter is to summarize the results of the current study of the

impact of Workforce Performance Management Systems (WPMS) availability on the

willingness of business professionals to engage in remote work environments. The

relation of this work to the decline of regular/full-time remote work will be developed,

and suggestions for further study will be provided as it relates to the results of this study.

While this study is unique in the fact that it provides a comparison of the WPMS solution

to the eight elements the literature (Chapter 2) suggests, it is limited in its scope of all

remote work possibilities and problems.

Restating the Problem

The issue of this study is the disparity of the early interest and expectations of

remote work growth and popularity with the current practice. Nilles (1975) and Toffler

(1980) suggested the viability and potential for remote work (telecommuting and

"electronic cottages"), and Toffler (1980) even prophesied that the 70% application of

remote would be the standard at the end of the Twentieth Century. Yet, this did not

happen, although Nilles nor Toffler had a clear vision of the impact of the Internet and

personal computing that took hold on a worldwide basis in the last twenty years.

In essence, the tools are available and the knowledge workforce is abundant.

What is holding regular/full-time remote work implementation at a standstill or to a

decline may be at the heart of future studies (Telework Trendlines, 2009). Westfall

128
(1997a and 1997b) questioned the praise and potential of remote work environments by

noting the additional work and utility of management and the economics of how savings

would be realized in remote work environments (1998). Staples (2001a and 2001b)

further suggested that the knowledge work environment required the same level of

employee involvement in goal setting and management support whether employees were

working in the office or from remote environments.

The literature showed the need for these eight elements to maintain a successful

remote work environment: Communication/Technology, Trust/Control System ,

Consistency, Input, Rules Defined, Evaluation, Feedback/Motivation, and

Succession/Support. The availability of WPMS solutions have been suggested as a

means of implementing these eight elements into the work environment. Since these

systems are provided via ASP (Application Software Provider) technology, online and

self-contained, without having to buy or store software on the firm's systems; the WPMS

solution could be manipulated from anywhere, requiring only Internet access. The

question was asked: Can the Availability of Workforce Performance Management

Systems Positively Affect the Decision to Engage in Remote Work Environments?

Review of the Methodology

To answer this question a study was designed for working professionals to

evaluate their current workplace and estimate their willingness to work in a

telecommuting environment (if offered) with their current employer (Pre-Information

Survey). This sample population of working professionals, then, was provided

129
information about the WPMS solution as it related to the eight elements of successful

remote work in the form of eight training components. This Training phase was

immediately followed by a survey requesting a reconsideration of the current workplace

by the sample population in which they were asked to hypothesize upon the

implementation of WPMS into the current workplace (Post-Information Survey).

The change in the 7-point Likert scale of willingness to consider remote work

between the Pre-Information Survey and the Post-Information Survey was evaluated for

statistical significance. The null hypothesis was stated that there would be no

relationship between the means of the two survey scores. The alternative hypothesis was

stated so that the Post-Information Survey would reveal a statistically significant increase

in the willingness to engage in remote work after the availability of WPMS was provided

in the Training phase.

Summary of Results

The research revealed that the sample population surveyed showed, with a 95%

degree of confidence, that there was only one statistically significant decrease (Ql Tl) in

willingness to engage in remote work environments. All others showed no significant

increase or decrease in willingness to engage in remote work. Each of the eight elements

were tested via the sixteen questions (eight Pre-Information and eight Post-Information)

of the survey instrument. The only significant difference was noted on the first element

(Ql Tl), and the Communication/Technology element actually showed a significant

decrease in the mean Post-Information Survey responses.

130
 Discussion of Results

With the lack of significance (in seven of eight elements) of willingness to

engage, the elements will be separated and evaluated as to the pre and post survey results.

The primary focus will be on the first element, Communication/Technology, and the

statistically significant decrease in willingness to engage demonstrated in the Post-

Information Survey.

Two issues are considered in the literature that might explain such a negative

response to Communication/Technology. First, the implementation of a technology

solution that requires extra work for both management and employees has been

considered a potential detriment to remote work engagement (Westfall, 1997b;

Schoorman et al, 2007). Westfall (1997b) actually challenged those considering the

promotion of telecommuting to consider the impact of the necessary additional work for

those involved in maintaining the remote environment. Second, the employees asked to

perform as distant workers could consider the use of this Communication/Technology

invasive (Adam & Crossan, 2001; Chen & Nath, 2005). Compared to presence-based

management (e.g. If the employee is here, he/she must be working) a control/system that

requires daily/weekly analysis of an employee's performance, which is updated and

constantly compared to the goals determined by both the employee and the supervisor for

advancement, the performance-based model could be very time-demanding. All

feedback/motivation is applied to helping the firm achieve corporate performance levels

and develops ongoing succession/support for the employee's career goals.

131
 As Staples (2001a) discovered, the same interaction between management and

employee that is needed for successful remote work, is just as effective (and necessary)

for the non-remote working counterpart. The time and effort required to implement and

maintain this level of interaction is often an increase in the time and effort provided or

available to the employee/management team. With rather high Pre-Information Survey

scores within the sample population, the current workplace may be seen as statistically

acceptable by this sample to engage in remote work. If the communication/technology

solution (WPMS) is added it may well be considered an overload on the current control

system by both management and employee level participants.

The second element through the seventh element tested (Trust/Control System,

Consistency, Input, Rules Defined, Evaluation, Feedback/Motivation) showed no

significant increase or decrease between the Pre-Information and Post-Information

Surveys. Again, the mean differences (Table 4.11) between these six elements, as

surveyed, showed a decrease, except with element five (Rules Defined). This element

showed a mean difference increase of 0.01 (5.36 to 5.37), far from significant. Likely,

the same issue of seeing the implementation of WPMS solutions, to an already high Pre-

Information Survey score, as an additional process to the existing system. This reflects

on what is expected of management and employee in the current system and what makes

successful remote work environments. This status quo satisfaction, assumed from the

high Pre-Information Survey scores, does not evaluate the effectiveness of the current

systems in place within the many firms represented by the sample population. Yet, from

the self-evaluations of previous studies, the performance efficiency of many firms are

suspect (Malachowski, 2005). The positive impact of flexibility in current work

132
environments (of some top performing companies) to retain a valued workforce could

reflect a need for something better than the status quo (Jossi, 2007; Conlin, 2006;

Kanuka, et al, 2008). Perhaps, a look at current management literature, which specialized

in developing agile working environments, would help in understanding the issues facing

industry as regular remote work declines.

Relationships of Current Study to Previous Research

In their book, Corporate Agility, Grantham, Williamson, and Ware (2007) noted

eight suggested barriers to remote work. Though not a study of the popularity or decline

on the remote work environment, their main reasoning for the shift out of the office was

the corporate real estate (CRE) savings (2007). The barriers suggested by these writers

are offered in respect to the general difficulty to change from the office to the out-of-

office environment. Table 5.1 is this author's alignment of the eight barriers to remote

work with the elements of successful remote work suggested in the literature used in this

study.

Table 5.1

Barriers to Remote Work Elements to Successful Remote Work

Human Intertia to Externally Imposed Rules Defined and Consistency
Change (Environment)
Organizational Inertia (See Environmental Elements, Table 5.2) -^
Management Habits and Industrial Age Feedb ack/Motivation
Thinking
Fear on the Part of Middle Managers Support/Succession
Fear on the Part of Frontline Workers Input
Uncertainty About Communications and Communication (Technology) and
Relationships in a Distributed Environment Evaluation (Presence)
CEO Edifice Complex (See Environmental Elements, Table 5.2)->
Plain Old Complexity—Distributed Work Control System is Trusted
is a Truly Big Change

133
Created by the author from Corporate Agility by Grantham, Williamson, & Ware (2007)

The first barrier offered is the Human Intertia to Externally Imposed Change

which relates well to the elements of Rules Defined and Consistency. Employees and

management have a propensity to avoid or combat change unless the environment of

change is supported by well-defined rules that are consistently applied and supported.

Management and employees are to follow the same rules as it applies to their roles within

the organization.

The second barrier offered by Grantham, Williamson, and Ware (2007) is

Organizational Inertia, or the difficulty or unwillingness of the organization to change.

Unlike this first barrier this unwillingness to move does not relate to the eight elements of

remote work. This barrier will be discussed in more detail, below.

From Table 5.1 we note the third barrier suggested by Grantham, Williamson, and

Ware (2007) is Management Habits and Industrial Age Thinking. This often-

unconscious mindset of management to view employees as untrustworthy or unwilling to

perform without direct management intervention is the primary focus of the

Feedback/Motivation element of the eight elements of successful remote work (Westfall,

1997, Davenport & Pearlson, 1998). Employee and management dialogue and follow up

are components of a successful telecommuting experience—and non-remote work

experience as well (Staples, 2001b).

The fourth barrier Grantham, Williamson, and Ware (2007) highlight is the Fear on

the Part of Middle Managers (Table 5.1). Perhaps, the greatest fear of those confronted

with the remote work option is the failure of the firm to support and promote the remote

worker as readily as those in non-remote work environments (Staples, 1996; Staples,

134
Hulland, and Higgins, 1998; Davenport & Pearlson, 1998; Fritz, Narasimhan, and Rhee,

1998; McCune, 1998). The middle manager with a vision to reach higher levels of

management within a firm, therefore, would not seek a telecommuting opportunity unless

the eighth element of successful remote work (Support/Succession) was effectively

controlled (Staples, 2001b).

Grantham, Williamson, and Ware (2007) suggest Fear on the Part of Frontline

Workers (Table 5.1) as the fifth barrier to remote work. Input from employees is a key

element to successful remote work environments, especially when this is a relatively new

undertaking by the firm (Gray, Hodsen & Gordon, 1994; Messmer, 2006).

The sixth barrier Grantham, Williamson, and Ware (2007) provide is the Uncertainty

About Communications and Relationships in a Distributed Environment (Table 5.1).

Communication/Technology and Evaluation are two elements of successful remote work

that contribute to offset this suggested barrier to regular telecommuting. The

communication must allow access to employee performance and allow ongoing

evaluations to provide effective performance appraisal in a timely manner (Gray,

Hodson, and Gordon, 1993; Staples, 2001b; Weiss, 1994; McNall et al, 2010).

The seventh barrier offered by Grantham, Williamson, and Ware (2007)—CEO

Edifice Complex (Table 5.1)—has no element of successful remote work in the literature

to offset it. The phenomenon of top management to desire employees to gather and/or

work in the proximity of the leader's office, though, is well documented and will be

discussed below.

The final barrier to remote work shared by Grantham, Williamson, and Ware (2007)

is the Plain Old Complexity—Distributed Work is a Truly Big Change (Table 5.1).

135
Distributed work must be maintained in a dynamic control system, in which all levels of

employment can trust if employees, management, and the remote work environment are

to be sustained (Caudron, 1992; Christensen, 1992; Guimaraes & Dallow, 1999;

Harrington & Ruppel, 1999; Staples, 2001b). The Trust/Control System as an element of

successful remote work suggests a trust in the system more than the probability of trust

among the people within the work environment, must be evident (Schoorman, et all,

2007).

A further analysis of barriers two and seven is needed, thus this author has created

Table 5.2 as an illustration of these items, which have no immediate relationship to the

eight elements of successful remote work. Below, a discussion of five points to consider

in relation to Organizational Inertia and three points to consider for the Edifice Complex

is offered.

Table 5.2

Barriers Structural Issues of Remote Work Not

Explained by the Eight Elements or
Affected by WPMS
Organizational Inertia 1- Resistance to change—stay with the
proven strategy (Grantham,Ware, &
Williamson, 2007; Collins, 2001)
2- How little management has really
changed since the early industrial age
(Hamel & Breen, 2007)
3- Organizational Readiness and
Situational Leadership (Hersey, Blanchard,
& Johnson, 1996; Fernandez & Vecchio,
1997)
4 - Organized to withstand and overcome
change (Grantham,Ware, & Williamson,
2007)
5- Change Process - Lewin model of
change (Hersey, Blanchard, & Johnson,
1996)
CEO Edifice Complex 1- Salary.com Study related to false

136
 security of Presence (Malachowski, 2005)
2- Bethlehem Steel vs. Nucor (Collins,
2001)
3- "Under one roof (Hamel & Breen,
2007)

First, Grantham, Willimason, and Ware (2007) note that Organizational Inertia is not

all bad, since organizations are rewarded for sticking to strategic goals. This is reiterated

by Jim Collins (2001) in his "flywheel" parable. Collins states that companies that left

mediocrity for greatness focused on one strategic view and maintained it. The longer the

steadfastness in keeping the same strategy, the more momentum the organization

acquired. As the "flywheel" keeps moving, the easier it is to maintain the strategy.

Second, Gary Hamel and Bill Breen (2007) shares his concern for management who has

held the same, basic management practices from the turn of the Twentieth Century, and

the management practices that were somewhat successful for large manufacturing

facilities may be completely ineffective with knowledge workers. Third, in relation to

change in management/employee relationships and environmental needs, the readiness of

the organization to change and the type of leadership deployed needs to be related. If

remote work (or non-remote work) is to be successful within an organization, the

application of the correct leadership style must be deployed when the organization is

ready. The readiness process for organizations is defined and suggested in detail by

Hersey, Blanchard, & Johnson (1996) and applied in Fernandez & Vecchio (1997). The

primary relevance of situational leadership theory and corporate readiness for the

purposes of discussing remote work is the strong correlation of leadership impact and

employee performance in relation to corporate readiness. The ability of employees and

management to change and grow seem to be strongly correlated with the readiness of

137
both parties to deal with affects of the changes in question. Fourth, Grantham,

Williamson, and Ware (2007) suggest that organizations are created to withstand change

on a corporate level. In fact, the structure of most organizational leadership is focused on

maintaining best practices, which can make innovation and change seem more of an

obstacle than a positive force, especially when telecommuting is involved (Perez, et al,

2003). Finally, corporate inertia and change is the focus of Kurt Lewin's Change Theory

described by Hersey, Blanchard, & Johnson (1996) as a three stage approach of

"unfreezing" (developing the mindset for the need to change), "unfrozen" (readiness to

change or move to a "new state"), and "refreezing" (making change permanent). In

telecommuting environments the changes have failed to reach this final permanent

change event, as can be seen by the recent decline from earlier increases in regular

remote work (Teleworking Trendlines 2009, 2009).

CEO Edifice Complex is quite a common experience. The individual at the

typical office environment with the most prestigious office and support facilities is the

executive leadership (Table 5.2). This has led to serious waste and loss of competitive

capacity through the "presence-based management philosophy." This "presence-based

management philosophy" was proven to be in error with Malachowski's survey released

through Salary.com (2005), showing the literally billions of dollars that are wasted as

employees self-reported they were at the office, on the Internet, but not working for their

employer an average of 2.09 hours per day. Also, Jim Collins (2001) noted the millions

of dollars wasted when Bethlehem Steel changed structural design of their corporate

offices (already under construction) in the 1980's to provide two Vice-Presidents with

window office views. Hamel and Breen (2007) suggested that the concern of much

138
current management practice is tied to maintaining operations "under one roof, as if the

knowledge worker environment could be run in the same manner as a manufacturing

facility.

Recommendations for Practitioners

From this research, the implementation of a trust/control system (especially as it

relates to communication in the form of technology) offers no positive impact to enhance

willingness to engage in remote work. In fact, the communication/technology factor

fared significantly negative. Perhaps, the maintenance of the required feedback and

control mechanisms should be expected to encourage a greater negative reaction than the

positive impact of enhanced trust in the trust/control system (Schoorman,, et al, 2007;

Mayer,Davis, & Schoorman, 1995). As has been proven by the very best companies who

implemented paradigmic changes, technology is only a tool that must be utilized within

the confines of the firm's core competency (Collins, 2001 ). Yet, if a trust/control system

of communication/technology is not the key to managing a remote work environment, the

following might be considered issues for those in the practice of managing remote and

non-remote work environments, which have been shown to require similar systems of

performance standards and communication (Staples, 2001a).

Corporate Work Applications

With the continued growth of Internet capability, the growth of the company and

its decentralized operations can proceed without geographic limitations—e.g.

139
transnational industry types. The ecological and economical implications of

remote/mobile work could be profound in the area of global competitive advantage for

American companies and American remote workers.

Distance Learning/Online Training

For those instructing within corporate or academic environments, it would be

better to understand how to create a reciprocal trust/control environment to shrink class

attrition and potential lack of integrity among students. This can be attained with the

implementation of learning environments that are performance based on objectives rather

than assessments and electronic assignments that are open to improper electronic sharing.

Perhaps, this will lead to improvements of the same performance-based assessments

implemented in face-to-face course applications, as well.

Technology Solution Providers

This information could provide marketing researchers with criteris to better create

the software solutions that meet the consumer's need for a trust/control system in remote

work environments. Elements of the products would include systems that provide easy

access to employee feedback and creation of ongoing performance appraisals.

Measurement of workforce performance should be simulated with performance

dashboard technology, for both remote and non-remote workers to enhance corporate

performance improvement. This acclamation to performance-based work environments,

in the office, may make the impact on remote work less negative as it relates to future

willingness to engage.

140
Business Schools of Higher Education

The value of what might seem to work in remote trust/control environments,

being the same as what works in non-remote environments, could encourage business

schools to produce graduates that can manage by results. Also, this research could

encourage business schools to focus on the teaching of interpersonal skills in leadership

training, enhancing the need for future managers to learn the art of managing people, not

just money, time, or promotion.

Inter-Organizational Comparisons

The survey instrument may provide interesting comparisons of organizations. By

testing one organization's workforce with its unique pre/post survey responses a

comparison could be made between organizations via the difference in responses. The

difference could be more readily defined as to culture, management styles, work types,

and organizational readiness to engage in remote work.

Suggestions of Additional Research

These humble suggestions are an outgrowth of the information gathered from

researching the literature for this project and the primary data that was acquired from the

survey process. Some suggested hypotheses are offered for those that may assume to

141
further the application of trust/control systems of performance standards for remote and

non-remote work environments.

Demographic data

Though the pre/post data reflected significance in the

Communication/Technology element, only, based on the eight elements of remote work,

some interesting comparisons may be made in the future between the demographic

groups gathered from the Pre-Information Surveys. For example, a visual inspection of

the data shows a potential disparity between the initial interest (pre-survey Likert scores)

of men and women (women being higher), the youngest and the oldest age groups (oldest

is higher), the education levels of those with a bachelors and all other education levels

(bachelors being higher), those with job time of 4-7 years and all other groups (4-7 years

of employment is higher), and employees and management (employees being higher).

Additional research would require a larger sample in order to meet acceptable size

requirements for further statistical analysis.

Possible suggested null hypotheses might include:

1) There is no relationship between age and initial interest in remote work.

2) There is no relationship between gender and initial interest in remote work

environments.

3) There is no relationship between job time and initial interest in remote work

environments.

142
4) There is no relationship between education level and initial interest in remote work

environments.

5) There is no relationship between corporate position and the initial interest in remote
work.

Change or Innovation

Change is a large process of moving to the remote work environment. Change

and how it is implemented requires communication processes that are in line corporate

values and culture. Innovative changes are essential to successful regular remote work

relocation.

Suggested hypothesis: Though a trust/control system is perceived to be enhanced by

systematic feedback and control processes, it is the process of changing the way we do

business and the communications that make it possible is unnecessary or undesirable.

Knowledge

How knowledge is shared and managed can be a key to remote/non-remote work

success. If what works in telecommuting environments, also improves non-remote work,

perhaps, remote work practices in training and always accessible corporate information to

employees might enhance all work environments and lead to the enhanced interest in the

change associated in remote work. By removing the differences or presumed obstacles to

remote work, making knowledge available to all the same way, remote work is just

143
another way of doing the same performance-based tasks.

Suggested hypotheses:

1) Though a trust/control system is perceived to be enhanced by systematic feedback and

control processes, the training needed to positively impact the way we do business and

the communications that make it possible is unnecessary or undesirable.

2) Though a trust/control system is perceived to be enhanced by systematic feedback and

control processes, the access to the necessary information or the need for input by all

participants in the work environment, needed to positively impact the way we do business

and the communications that make it possible, is unnecessary or undesirable.

Compensation Changes

It has been proposed that if some workers interested in more remote work

opportunities would be able to save enough money by staying home and working, then

the company could adjust their compensation downward for remote workers.

Suggested Hypotheses:

1) As evidence of the savings to the remote worker, the remote worker will commit to

the success of the process by accepting lower compensation to offset the firm's initial

cost for implementation and maintenance, thus sharing the employee's savings with the

firm.

2) As evidence of trust in the savings to the remote worker and the employing firm, the

employing firm will commit to the implementation (and eventual success) of the process.

This will be accomplished by offering an initial lower compensation scale to offset the

144
firm's cost for implementation and maintenance, but will compensate the remote worker

with an incentive, based on savings to the firm, after six months of successful

implementation.

Conclusion

Though the cost savings and employee loyalty related to the implementation of

remote work have driven new interest in this work model, the telecommuting programs

that are full-time in application are declining. This research has shown no significant

increase in the willingness to engage in remote work after the availability of Workforce

Performance Management Systems (WPMS) was shown to be available and simulating

the eight elements of successful remote work.

The performance-based environment that is necessary to the eight elements of

successful remote work (Trust/Control System, Consistency, Input, Rules Defined,

Evaluation, Feedback/Motivation) seems to have no unique effectiveness to remote work

environments over non-remote applications. The systems that support performance-

based work, whether remote or not, are implemented by people, and the technology must

be seen as a tool that aids the individuals managing the system.

145
 References

Adam, F. and Crossan, G. (2001). "Teleworking in Ireland: Issues and perspectives". In

Telecommuting and Virtual Offices: Issues and Opportunities (pp. 28-49).
Johnson, N.J. (Ed.) Idea Group Publishing: Hershey, PA.

Aguinis, H. (2007). Performance Management. Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education,

Inc.

Allio, M. K., (2005). A, Short Practical Guide to Implementing Strategy. Journal of

Business Strategy, Vol. 26 (4), pp. 12-21.

Alvi, S. and Mclntyre, D. (1993). "The open collar worker". Canadian Business Review,
20(1), pp. 21-24.

Annotated SPSS Output: Descriptive Statistics. (2008). UCLA: Academic Technology

Services, Statistical Consulting Group.
hUp://\v\\\\.als.ucla.edu/stat/spss/outpiit/descriptives.htm

Apgar, M.V. (1998). "The alternative workplace: Changing where and how people
work". Harvard Business Review, 76 (3), pp. 121-136.

Azmi FT and MN Khan. (2004). "Telecommuting: Implications and Impact on Business

Organisations", in Managing Trade, Technology and Environment, M Mallikarjun
And PK Chugan (eds), New Delhi: Excel Books, pp 409-421.

Bacal, Robert. (1999). Performance Management. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Baig, E.C. (1995). "Welcome the office-less office: Telecommuting may finally be out of
the experimental stage". Business Week. June 26, pp. 104-106.

Bailey, D.E. and N. B. Kurland. (2002). "A review of telework research: findings, new
directions, and lessons for the study of modern work." Journal of Organizational
Behavior. Vol. 23, pp. 383-400.

Bailyn, L. (1994). "Toward the perfect workplace? The experience of home-based

systems developers". In T.J. Allen & M.S. Scott Morton (Eds.) Information
Technology and the Corporation of the 1990's: Research Studies. New York:
Oxford University Press.

Baruch, Y. (2001). "The status of research on teleworking and an agenda for future
research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3 (2), I pp. 113-129.

146
Baruch, Y. and Nicholson, N. (1997). "Home, Sweet Work". Journal of General
Management. 23 (2), pp. 15-30.

Beer, Michael & Eisenstat, Russell A. (2000). "The silent killers of strategy
implementation and learning" Sloan Management Review. Summer 2000: 29-40.

Belanger, F., Collins, R.W., and Cheney, P.H. ( 2001). "Technology Requirements and
Work Group Communication for Telecommuters," Information Systems Research
(12:2) 2001, pp 155-176.

Belanger, F. and R.W. Collins. (1998). "Distributed work arrangements: a research

framework.." The Information Society. Vol 14, pp. 137-152.

Bersin, Josh. (2006). "Keep Your Eyes on the Performance Management Market".
Workforce Performance Solutions. March, Article accessed on website:
http:, w\\ w s\ psmag.com

Bersin, Josh. (2007, July). Where to Focus Your Talent Management Investments: The
top 22 high impact talent management processes [PowerPoint slides] Webinar
sponsored by SuccessFactors.
Retrieved from: http: www.successfactors.com docs Sh-
Research Bersin Jul\07.pdf

Blair, R. Clifford, and James J. Higgins. (1985). Comparison of the Paired Samples t Test
to That of Wilcoxon's Signed-Ranks Test Under Various Population Shapes.
Psychological Bulletin. Vol. 97, No. 1, pp. 119-128.

Bleha, Thomas. (2005). "Down to the Wire". Foreign Affairs. May/June, Vol. 84,
Issue 3.

Boris, Eileen. (1994). Home to Work: Motherhood and the Politics of Industrial
Homework in the United States. Cambridge University Press.

BresnahanJ. (1998). "Why Telework?". CIO. 11 (7), pp. 28-37.

Brinkley, Douglas. (2003). Wheels for the World. New York: Penguin Books.

Butler, E., Aasheim, C , & Williams, S. (2007). Does Telecommuting Improve

Productivity? Communications of the ACM, 50(4), 101-103. Retrieved from
Academic Search Premier database.

Campbell, J. P., Dunnettee, M. D., Lawler, E. E., Ill, and Weick, K. E, Jr., (1970).
"Expectancy Theory." Managerial Behavior, Performance, and Effectiveness.
New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 343 - 348.

Capelli, Peter. (2007, August). Talent on Demand-Managing Talent in an Age

147
 Uncertainty [PowerPoint slides]. Webinar sponsored by SuccessFactors.
Retrieved from: http^www.successfaclors.com/docs/TalentonDemand-
Cappelli.pdf

Cascio, W.F. (2000). "Managing a virtual workplace," Academy of Management

Executive.(\4:3), pp 81-90.

Caudron, S. (1992). "Working at home pays off. PersonnelJournal. November, pp. 40-
49.

Cetron, M., & Davies, O. (2010). Trends Shaping Tomorrow's World, Futurist, 44(3), 35-
50. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

Chambers, J. M., W. S. Cleveland, B. Kleiner and P. A. Tukey. (1983). Graphical

Methods for Data Analysis., Wadsworth & Brooks/Cole Publishing Co., pp.395.

Chapman, A. J., Sheehy, N.P., Heywood, S., Dooley, B., and Collins, S.C. (1995). "The
organizational implications of teleworking". In C.L. Cooper and I.T. Robertson
(Eds.) International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. New-
York: Wiley.

Charan, R. (2001) "Conquering a Culture of Indecision." Harvard Business Review.

Jan. pp. 108-116.

Chen, L. and Nath, R. (2005). "Nomadic culture: Cultural support for working anytime,
anywhere". v> ww.ISM-Joumal.com (Fall), pp. 56-64.

Christensen, K.E. (1992). "Managing invisible employees: How to meet the

telecommuting challenge". Employment Relations Today. Summer, pp. 133-143.

Clark, Don. (2000). "South Asian 'Angels' Reap Riches, Spread Wealth in Silicon
Valley". The Wall Street Journal-Online. May 2.

Clear, F. and Dickson, K. (2005). "Teleworking practice in small and medium-sized

firms: management style and worker autonomy". New Technology, Work and
Employment. 20 (3), pp. 218-233.

Collins, J., & Moschler, J. (2009). The Benefits and Limitations of Telecommuting.
Defense Acquisition Review Journal, 16(1), 55-66. Retrieved from Academic
Search Premier database.

Collins, Jim. (2001). Good to Great: Why some companies make the leap...and others
don't. New York: Harper Collins.

Conlin, Michelle. (2006). "Smashing the Clock". BusinessWeek. Cover Story Podcast.

148
 December 11.

Cooper, C. & Kurland, N. B. (2002). Telecommuting, professional isolation and

employee development in public and private organizations. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 23, 511-532.

Cote-O'Hara, J- (1993) "Sending them home to work: Telecommuting," Business

Quarterly (57:3), pp 104-109.

Crandall, W. and Gao, L. (2005). "An update on telecommuting: Review and prospects
for emerging issues". SAM Advanced Management Journal. (Summer), pp. 30-37.

Crossman, A. and Lee-Kelley, L. (2004). "Trust, commitment, and team working: the
paradox of virtual organizations". Global Networks. 4 (4), pp. 375-390.

Cummings, L.L. (1983). "Performance-Evaluation Systems in the Context of Individual

Trust and Commitment." From the Performance Measurement and Theory.
Edited by Frank Landy, Sheldon Zedeck, and Jeanette Cleveland. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Daniels, Kevin, Lamond, D., and Standen, P. (2001). "Teleworking: frameworks for
organizational research", Journal of Management Studies, 38:8, December.

Davis, Bob. "Finding Lessons in Outsourcing in Four Historical Tales". Wall Street
Journal. March 29, 2004, Vol. 243, Issue 61, p A l .

Davenport, T.H. and Pearlson, K. (1998). "Two cheers for the virtual office". Sloan
Management Review. 39 (4), pp. 51-65.

Deming, W. E. (2000). "Out of the Crisis". MIT Press International; Cambridge, MA.

Dimitrova, D. (2003), 'Controlling Teleworkers: Supervision and Flexibility Revisited',

New Technology, Work and Employment 18, 3, 181-195.

Dixon, T.L., and Webster, J. "Family Structure and the Telecommuter's Quality of Life,"
Journal of End User Computing (10:4) 1998, pp 42-49.

Dooley, B.J. (2005). "Telecommuting Remote Access Solutions". Faulkner Information

Services. Docid:00018777.

Drucker, Peter. (1997). "The Future That Has Already Happened." Harvard Business
Review, September-October, pp. 4-6.

Drucker, Peter. (1974). Management. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers.

Drucker, Peter. (1977). People and Performance: The Best of Peter Drucker on

149
 Management. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers.

Drucker, Peter. (2002). Managing in the Next Society. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Drucker, Peter. (1995). Managing in a Time of Great Change. New York: Dutton.

Dunkin, A. and Baig, E. (1995). "Taking care of business-without leaving the house".
Business Week. April 17, pp. 106-107.

Duxbury, L. and Higgins, C. (2002). "Telework: A primer for the millennium

introduction." from The New World of Work: Challenges and Opportunities.
Edited by Cary L. Cooper and Ronald J. Burke. Oxford, UK: Blackwell
Publishers, Ltd.

Duxbury, L. and Higgins, C. (1995). Summary Report on Statistics Canada's Pilot-

Project in Telecommuting. January (Document #75F008XPF). Statistics Canada.

Duxbury, L. and Neufeld, D. (1999). "An empirical evaluation of the impacts of

telecommuting on intra-organizational communication". Journal of Engineering
Technology Management. 16, pp. 1-28.

Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P.D., and Rhoades, L., (2001),
"Reciprocation of perceived organizational support", Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 86, No. 1, pp. 42-51.

Eldib, O.E. and Minoli, D. (1995). Telecommuting. Boston: Artech House.

"Example of Paired Sample t-test". (2010). Chapter 6: Analysing the Data. Part III:
Common Statistical Tests. URL:
htlp://www.une.edu/WebStat/unitmaterials/c6 common statistical tests/'example paire
d_sampje_t_test^

Faunce, W. A. (1981). Problems of an Industrial Society. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Ferguson, Glover, Sanjay Mathur & Saiju Shah. (2005, Winter). "Evolving From
Information to Insight." MIT Sloan Management Review. 51-58.

Fernandez, Carmen F.Vecchio, Robert P. (1997) "Situational leadership theory revisited:

A test of an across-jobs perspective" LeadershipQuarterly 8.1: 67. Military &
Government Collection. EBSCO. Web. 6 Oct. 2011.

Fitzer, M.M. (1997). "Managing form afar: Performance and rewards in a telecommuting
environment". Compensation and Benefits Review. 29 (1), pp. 65-73.

Flexible Working - Business Benefit or Personal Perk? (2002) Nextra UK Report, April.

150
Ford, R.C., and McLaughlin, F. (1995). "Questions and answers about telecommuting
programs". Business Horizons (38:3), pp 66-72.

Friedman, Thomas L.. (2000). The Lexus and the Olive Tree: Understanding
globalization. New York: Farar, Straus, and Giroux.

Friedman, Thomas L.. (2005). The World is Flat: A brief history of the twenty-first
century. New York: Farar, Straus, and Giroux.

Fritz, M.B.W., Narasimhan, S., and Rhee, H. K. (1998). "Communication and

coordination in the virtual office". Journal of Management Information Systems.
14 (4), pp. 7-28.

Froggatt, C.C., (1998). "Telework: Whose choice is it anyway?" Facilities Design and
Management, pp. 18-21.

Fukuyama, Francis. (1995). Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity.
New York: The Free Press.

Gerber, B. (1995). "Virtual teams". Training. 32 (4), pp. 36-40.

Gerstner, Louis V., Jr. (2002). Who Says Elephants Can "t Dance? New York: Harper
Collins.

"Getting There: The business benefits of workforce performance management" (2005).

White Paper from Knowledge Infusion, Inc. (September) at:
http://www.succcssractors.com/rnfo/en whitcpapcrs, success

Gibson, J. Blackwell, C , Dominicis, P., and Demerath, N. (2002). "Telecommuting in

the 21 st century: Benefits, issues, and a leadership model which will work".
Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, S (4), pp. 75-86.

Gilder, George. (2000). Telecosm: How Infinite Bandwidth Will Revolutionize Our
World. New York: The Free Press.

Golden, T.D. and J.F. Veiga. (2005). "The role of virtual work in understanding the
impact of supervisory relationships". Academy of Management Best Conference
Paper. OB:Kl.

Goldratt, E. M. (2004). "The Goal: A Process of Ongoing Improvement." 3 rd Edition.

North River Press; Great Barrington, MA.

Grantham, Charles E., James P. Ware, and Cory Williamson. (2007). Corporate Agility:
A revolutionary new model for competing in aflat world. New York:
AMACOM.

151
Grantham, Charles and James Ware. (2007, September). Remote Work and Productivity
[PowerPoint slides]. Webinar sponsored by SuccessFactors. Retrieved
from:http://www.success factors.com/docs/Reniote WorkGranthamWare.pdf

Gray, M., Hodson, N., and Gordon, G. (1994). Teleworking Explained. Chichester,
England: Wiley.

Greengard, S. (1995). "All the comforts of home". PersonnelJournal. 74 (7), pp. 104-
108.

Gross, Grant. (2010). "FCC Frees Up 25 MHZ Wireless Spectrum for Broadband".
www,PC Worki.com. Retrieved from:
htlp.vV'w w\v. pcworld.com/businessccnter/article/i96813/fcc frees up 25NH/ of
Wireless Spectrum for Broadband

Guimaraes, T., and Dallow, P. (1999). "Empirically testing the benefits, problems , and
success factors for telecommuting programs. European Journal of Information
Systems. 8 (1), pp. 40-54.

Hamel, Gary, and Bill Breen. (2007). The Future of Management. Boston: Harvard
Business School Publishing.

Handy, C. (1995). "Trust and the Virtual Organization." Harvard Business Review. 73
(3), pp. 40-50.

Harrington, S.J., and Ruppel, C.P. (1999), "Telecommuting: a test of trust, competing
values, and relative advantage". IEEE Transactions on Professional
Communication, Vol. 42, No. 4, December.

Heil G. Bennis W. Stephens, D. (2000), Douglas McGregor, Revisited. New York: John
Wiley and Sons.

Hersey, Paul, Kenneth H. Blanchard, and Dewey E. Johnson. (1996). Management of

Organizational Behavior-Utilizing Human Resources. lx Edition. Upper Saddle
River,
NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Higa, K., and Shin, B. (2003). "Telework Experience in Japan". Communications of the
ACM. September. Vol 46 (9), pp.233-242.

Hilbrecht, M., Shaw, S., Johnson, L., & Andrey, J. (2008). 'I'm Home With the Kids':
Contradictory Implications for Work-Life Balance of Teleworking Mothers.
Gender, Work & Organization, 15(5), 454-476.

Hoang, A., Nickerson, R., Beckman, P., & Eng, J. (2008). Telecommuting and corporate
culture: Implications for the mobile enterprise. Information Knowledge Systems

152
 Management, 7(1/2), 77-97. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

Home-Based Employees. Engage. (2004). Issue 1, August.

Humble, J. E., Jacobs, S. M., and Van Sell, M. (1995). "Benefits of telecommuting for
engineers and other high-tech professionals". Industrial Management. 37, pp. 15-19.

Huntington, Samuel P. (1996). The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World
Order. New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks.

Hunton, J., & Norman, C. (2010). The Impact of Alternative Telework Arrangements on
Organizational Commitment: Insights from a Longitudinal Field Experiment.
Journal of Information Systems, 24(1), 67-90.

Huws, U. (1993). Teleworking in Britain (Report No. 18). London: Employment

Department Research Series.

Jeffrey-Hill, E., Grzywacz, J., Allen, S., Blanchard, V., Matz-Costa, C , Shulkin, S., et al.
(2008). Defining and conceptualizing workplace flexibility. Community, Work &
Family, 11(2), 149-163.

Jeffery-Hill, E., Erickson, J., Holmes, E., & Ferris, M. (2010). Workplace Flexibility,
Work Hours, and Work-Life Conflict: Finding an Extra Day or Two. Journal of
Family Psychology, 24(3), 349-358.

Jennings, Jason. (2002). Less Is More: How Great Companies Improve Productivity
Without Layoffs. New York: The Penguin Group.

Johnson, M. (1997). Teleworking. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Jones, Caroline. (2005). "Teleworking: The Quiet Revolution 2005 Update. Gartner
Inc. Research. (Publication # GOO 122284), September 14.

Jossi, Frank. (2007). "Clocking Out." HR Magazine. June. Pp. 47-50.

Kanigel, Robert. (2005). The One Best Way: Frederick Winslow Taylor and the Enigma
of Efficiency, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Kanuka, H., Jugdev, K., Heller, R., & West, D. (2008). The rise of the teleworker: false
promises and responsive solutions. Higher Education, 56(2), 149-165.

Kepczyk, R. H. (1998). "Evaluating the virtual office". Ohio CPA Journal, pp. 16-17.

153
Kern, H. (1998) 'Lack of Trust, Surfeit of Trust: Some Causes of the Innovation Crises in
German Industry', in C. Lane and R. Bachmann (eds,) Trust Within and Between
Organizations, pp. 203-213. Oxford: Oxford University Press .

Khan, M. N. and F.T. Azmi. (2005). "Reinventing Business Organisations: The

information culture framework." Singapore Management Review. Vol. 27, No 2,
July, pp. 37-62.

Kipnis, D. (1996). "Trust and Technology." Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory

and Research. Edited by Roderick M. Kramer and Tom R. Tyler. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Kirkley, J. (1994). "Business Week's Conference on the Virtual Office". Business Week,
Septermber 5, pp. 63-66.

Kirvan, P. (1995). "How to manage systems for remote workers". Communications

News. 33, pg 67.

Knight, P.J. and Westbrook, J. (1999). "Comparing employees in traditional job

structures vs. telecommuting jobs using Herzberg's hygienes and motivators".
Engineering Management Journal. 11 (1), pp. 15-20.

Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test. (2010). College of St. Benedict and St. John's University
Online Analytic Tools. http://www.physics.csbsju.edu/stats/KS-test.htni1

Kondra, A.Z. and Hinings, C.R. (1998). "Organizational diversity and change in
institutional theory". Organizational Studies, 19, pp 743-767.

Korzeniowski, P. (1997). "The telecommuting dilemma". Business Communications

News. April, pp. 29-32.

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

Lamond, D., Daniels, K. and Standen, P. (1997). "Defining Telework: What is it

Exactly?", Second International Workshop on Telework Amsterdam 97.

Laudon, Kenneth C. and Jane P. Laudon. (2006). Management Information Systems

Managing the Digital Firm. 9th Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Prentice Hall.

Lee, M.D., MacDermid, S.M., and M. L. Buck. (2000). "Organizational Paradigms of

Reduced-Load Work: Accommodation, Elaboration, and Transformation."
Academy of Management Journal. Vol. 43, No. 6, pp. 1211-1226.

154
Lieberman, M.B. & Asaba, S. (2006) "Why do Firms Imitate Each Other?" Academy of
Management Review. Vol 31. No.2, 366-385.

Luhmann, N. (1988). "Familiarity, Confidence, Trust: Problems and Alternatives." From

Trust: Making and Breaking Corporate Relations. Edited by Diego Gambetta.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell, Ltd.

Magretta, Joan. (1999). Managing In the New Economy. Boston: Harvard Business
School Publishing.

Mahfood, P. E. (1992). Home Work: How to Hire, Manage and Monitor Employees Who
Work From Home. Chicago: Probus Publishing Co.

Major, D., Verive, J., & Joice, W. (2008). Telework as a Dependent Care Solution:
Examining Current Practice to Improve Telework Management Strategies.
Psychologist-Manager Journal, 11(1), 65-91.

Malachowski, Dan. (2005). "Wasted time at work costing companies billions".

Salary.com (July 11) Reference:
http: ,www.salary.com'advancedsearch'la\oiilscripts/asel_display.asp?filename =&pat!r
destinalioiisearclv careers''part par555 body, him 1

Malone, Thomas W. (2004). The Future of Work. Boston: Ffaivard Business

School Publishing.

Mayer, R. C. and Gavin, M. B. (2005). "Trust in management and performance: Who

minds the shop while the employees watch the boss?" Academy of Management
Journal. Vol 48 (5), pp. 874-888.

Mayer, R. C , J. H. Davis, and F. D. Schoorman. 1995. An integrative model of

organizational trust. Academy of Management Review 20 (3): 709-734.

McCloskey, D.W. and M. Igbaria. (1998). A review of the empirical research on

telecommuting and directions for future research. In The Virtual Workplace, (pp.
338-358), Igbaria, M., Tan, M. (eds.) Idea Group Publishing: Hershey, PA.

McCloskey, D. and Igbaria, M. (2003). "Does Out of Sight Mean Out of Mind? An
Empirical Investigation of the Career Advancement Prospects of
Telecommuters". Information Resource Management Journal. (april-June), pp.
19-34.

McCune, J. C. (1998). "Telecommuting Revisited". Management Review. 87 (2), pp. 10-

16.

McLeod, Raymond and George P. Schell. (2007). Management Information Systems,

155
 (10 Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

McNall, L., Masuda, A., & Nicklin, J. (2010). Flexible Work Arrangements, Job
Satisfaction, and Turnover Intentions: The Mediating Role of Work-to-Family
Enrichment. Journal of Psychology, 144(1), 61-81. Retrieved from Academic
Search Premier database.

McNurnin, Barbara C. and Ralph H. Sprague, Jr. (2006). Information Systems

Management in Practice, (7th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education,
Inc.

Meehan, Anita M., and C. Bruce Warner. (2000). Elementary Data Analysis Using
Microsoft Excel. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

Messmer, Ellen. (2006). "Telecommuting security concerns grow." NetworkWorld.com at

http: networkworld.com new s'2006/042406-telecommuter-secunt).html , April
24.

Mobility and Mistrust? (2004). Toshiba (Australia) Information Systems Division report,
September.

Mokhtarian, P.L. and Solomon, I. (1997). "Modeling the desire to telecommute: the
importance of attitudinal factors in behavioral models". Transportational
Research Record. A 31, pp 35-50.

Mokhtarian PL. (1991). Telecommuting and travel: state of the practice, state of the art.
Transportation 18: 319—342.

Moskowitz, R. (2007). "Cash for Telecommuting." Published on the Wachovia web site
at: http ^\\\\\\ wachmia com small bur page pi inter 0.1447_9"72_J69i;_J946__l%l. 00 html

Ndubisi, N.O. and C. Kahraman. (2005). "Teleworking adoption decision-making

processes. Multinational and Malaysian firms comparison." The Journal of
Information Enterprise Management, Vol 18, No. 2, pp. 150-168.

Neilson, G. L., Pasternack, B. A., & Van Nuys, K. E. (2005, October). "The
passive-aggressive organization." Harvard Business Review, 83, 10, 82-92

Miles, J.M. (1975). "Telecommunications and Organizational Decentralization." IEEE

Transactions On Communications. Com 23: 1142-1147.

Nilles, J. M. (1994). Making Telecommuting Happen. New York: Van Nostrand

Reinhold.

156
O'Brien, James A. (2005). Introduction to Information Systems, (12 Ed.). Boston:
McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

O'Brien, Peter C. and Thomas R. Fleming. (1987). "A Paired Prentice-Wilcoxen Test for
Censored Paired Data". Biometrics, Vol. 43, No. 1 (March), pp. 169-180.

O'Brien, Rita Cruise. (2001). Trust: Releasing the Energy to Succeed. West Sussex:
England: Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Olorunniwo, Festus, Byron Pennington, and Maxwell K. Hsu. (2002). "Developing a

Service Quality Construct: A Pedagogical Approach." Academy of Collegiate
Marketing Educators.

Olszewski, P. and Mokhtarian, P. (1994). "Telecommuting frequency and impacts for

state of California employees". Technological Forecasting and Social Change.
45, pp. 275-286.

"Paired Sample T-Test". (2010). Statistics Solutions, Inc. URL to article:

htrp://www.statisticssolutions.coni/methods-chaptcr/statistical-tests/paired-
sample-t-tcst'

Parasuraman, A. and Charles A. Colhy. (2001). Techno-Ready Marketing: How and Why
YourCustomers Adopt Technology. New York: The Free Press.

Pearlson, K.E., and Saunders, C.S. (2001). "There's no place like home: Managing
telecommuting paradoxes," Academy of Management Executive (15:2) , pp 117-
128.

Perez, Manuela Perez, Sanchez, A.M., Carnicer, P., and Jimenez, M. (2004). "A
technology acceptance model of innovation adoption: the case of teleworking."
European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 7, No 4, pp. 208-291.

Perez, Manuela Perez, Sanchez, A.M., Carnicer, P., and Jimenez, M. (2003). "Top
manager and institutional effects on the adoption of innovations: The case for
teleworking". Prometheus. Vol. 21 (1), pp. 59-73.

Pfeffer, Jeffrey. & Sutton, R.I. (2006, January). "Evidence-based management."

Harvard Business Review, 63-7'4.

Pfeffer, Jeffrey.(1994). Competitive Advantage Through People: Unleashing the power

of the workforce.. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Pfeffer, Jeffrey. (1992). Managing With Power. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Pink, Daniel H. (2001). Free Agent Nation: The future of working for yourself. New
York: Warner Business Books.

157
Pinsonneault, A. and M. Boisvert. (2001). "The Impacts of Telecommuting on
Organizations and Individuals: A review of the literature." In Telecommuting and
Virtual Offices: Issues and Opportunities (pp. 163-1850). Johnson, NJ (ed.) Idea
Group Publishing: Hershey, PA.

Piskurich, G. M. (1996). "Making telecommutmg work". Training and Development. 50

(2), pp. 20-27.

Pomeroy, Ann. (2007). "The Future Is Now." HR Magazine. September, pp. 46-51.

Porter, Jon. (2006). "Telecommuting to Combat Traffic and Terrorism." Report on the
Committee on House Government Reform Subcommittee on Federal Workforce
and Agency Organization. FDCH Congressional Testimony, July 18, Accession
No. 32Y1277161251. Corporate ResourceNet.

Pratt, J. H. (1997). "Why Aren't More People Telecommuting?—Explanations from four

studies." Transportation Research Record. National Research Council, (ed.)
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, pp. 196-203.

Ramsower, R.M. (1985). Telecommuting: The Organizational and Behavioral Effects of

Working at Home. UMI Research Press: Ann Arbor, MI.

Reina, D.S. and Reina, M.L. (2006). Trust and Betrayal in the Workplace: Building
effective relationships in your organization. San Francisco; Berrett-Koehler
Publishers, Inc.

Reinsch, N. L., Jr. (1997). "Relationship between telecommuting workers and their
managers: An exploratory study". The Journal of Business Communications. 34
(4), pp.343-369.

Richter, J. and Meshulam, I. (1993). "Telework at home: The home and the organization
perspective". Human Systems Management. 12, pp. 193-203.

Riley, F., and McCloskey, D.W. (1997). "Telecommuting as a response to helping people
balance work and family". In J. Greenhaus and S. Parasuraman (Eds.) Integrating
Work and Family: Challenges and Choices for a Changing World. Wellsport,
CN: Quorum Books.

Robb, Drew. (2008). "Appraising Appraisal Software". HR Magazine. October, pp. 65-
70.

Rohrer, Carolyn R. (2008). "Sun Microsystems Study Finds Open Work Program Saves
Employees Time and Money, Decreases Carbon Output". Business Wire. June,
9.

158
Ruppel, C.P. and S.J., Harrington (2000), "The Relationship of Communication, Ethical
Work Climate, and Trust to Commitment and Innovation." Journal of Business
Ethics. 25, pp 313-328.

Ruppel, C , and Harrington, S.J. (1997). "The Role of Trust, Communication and
Corporate Culture in Telecommuting Relationships," Americas Conference on
Information Systems.

Ruppel, C.P. and Harrington, S. J. (1995). "Telework: Innovation where nobody is

getting on the bandwagon". Data Base Advances. 26 (2-3), pp.87-104.

Sako, M. (1998). Does trust improve business performance? In Trust Within and Between
Organizations,edited by C. Lane, and R. Bachmann, 88-117. Oxford, U.K.:
Oxford University Press.

Savage, Doris. (1982). "Trust as a productivity management tool." Training and

Development Journal. February, pp 54-57.

Schoorman, F. David, Roger C. Mayer, and James H. Davis. (2007). "An Integrative
Model of Organizational Trust: Past, present, and future." Academy of
Management Review. Vol.32, No. 2, pp. 344-354.

Senge, Peter M. (1994). The Fifth Discipline: The are and practice of the learning
organization. New York: Currency Doubleday.

Shaw, Douglas G., Craig Eric Schneier, Richard W. Beatty, and Lloyd S. Baird. (1995).
The Performance Measurement, Management, and Appraisal Sourcebook.
Amherst, Massachusetts: Human Resource Development Press.

Siha, S.M. and R. W. Monroe. (2006). "Telecommuting's past and future: a literature
review and research agenda." Business Process Management Journal. Vol. 12,
No 4, pp 455-482.

Shin, B., Sheng, O.R.L., and Higa, K. "Telework: Existing Research and Future
Directions," Journal of Organizational Computing & Electronic Commerce (10:2)
2000, pp 85-101.

Sladek, C , & Hollander, E. (2009). Where Is Everyone?: The Rise of Workplace

Flexibility. Benefits Quarterly, 25(2), 17-22. Retrieved from Academic Search
Premier database.

Solomon, C. (2000). "Don't forget your telecommuters". Workforce. 79, May, pp. 56-63.

Solomon, N. A. and Templer, A. J. (1993). "Development of non-traditional work sites:

The challenge of telecommuting". Journal of Management Development. 12 (5),
pp. 21-32.

159
Stanko, B.B., and Matchette, R.J. (1994). "Telecomuting: The future is now". B&E
Review. October/November, pp. 8-11.

Staples, D. S. (2001a). "A Study of Remote Workers and Their Differences from Non-
Remote Workers." Journal of End User Computing. Vol. 13, Issue 2, pp. 3-14.

Staples, D. S. (2001b). "Making Remote Workers Effective." In Telecommuting and

Virtual Offices: Issues and Opportunities (pp. 163-1850, Johnson, NJ (ed.) Idea
Group Publishing: Hershey, PA.

Staples, D.S. (1998).and Ratnasingham, P. "Trust: the panacea of virtual management?"

from the proceedings of the ICIS—International Conference of Information
Systems. Pp 165-176.

Staples, D.S., Hulland, J.S., and C.A. Higgins. (1998). "A Self-Efficacy Theory
Explanation for the Management of Remote Workers in Virtual Organizations."
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3 (4).

Sturgeon, Alice. (1996). "Telework: threats, risks, and solutions". Information

Management & Computer Security. Vol 4, No 2, pp. 27-38.

"Telework Trcndlines 2009". (2009). Survey Brief by WorldalWork. Data collected by

The Dieringer Research Group Inc. February.

Thomas, Zach. (2007, September). Transform Your Business-Focus on Your People

[PowerPoint slides]. Webinar sponsored by SuccessFactors. Retrieved from:
http:-'/vi w\\. succcssfactors.com/docsyFI\A LForrestcr927.pdf

Toffler, Alvin (1980). The Third Wave. New York: Bantam Books.

Tomaskovic-Devey, D. and Risman, B. (1993), "Telecommuting innovation and

organization: a contingency theory of labor process", Social Science Quarterly,
Vol. 74 No. 2, pp. 367-86.

Wardell, Charles. "The Art of Managing Virtual Teams: Eight Key Lessons." Harvard
Management Update. November 1998, p.4.

Ware, James P. and Charles E. Grantham. (2007). "Market Segmentation and

Development for Remote Work Centers". Wired West Michigan. February: 20pgs.

Warne, D. and Holland, C. P.. (1999). "Exploring Trust in Flexible Working Using a
New Model." BT Technology Journal. 17(l),pp 111-119.

Watad, M.M., and DiSanzo, F.J. (2000). "Case Study The Synergism of Telecommuting

160
 and Office Automation," Sloan Management Review. (41:2) 2000, pp 85-96.

Weiss, J. M. (1994). "Telecommuting boosts employee output". HR Magazine. 39 (2),

pp.51-53.

Westfall, R. D. (1998). "The Microeconomics of Remote Work." In The Virtual

Workplace (pp. 256-287), Igbaria, M., Tan, M. (eds.) Idea Group Publishing:
Hershey, PA.

Westfall, R. D. (1997a). Remote Work: A conceptual perspective on the demand for

telecommuting. Ph. D. Dissertation. Claremont University. Claremont, CA.

Westfall, Ralph D. (1997b). "The Telecommuting Paradox." Information Systems

Management, Fall, Vol. 14 Issue 4, pi5, 6p.

Whitley, Elise and Jonathan Ball. (2002). Statistics Review 6: Nonparametric Methods.
Found online at hltp: 'ccforum.com/contenl 6'6o09: Sept. 13, 5 pgs.

Wilkes, R.B., Frolick, M. N., and Urwiler, R. (1994). "Critical issues in developing
successful telework programs". Journal of Systems Management. 45 (7), pp. 30-
34.

Wren, Daniel. (2005). The History of Management Thought. (5th ed.). John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ.

Wren, Daniel. (1993). The Evolution of Management Thought. (4th ed.). John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ.

Wynbrandt, James. (2004). Flying High: How JetBlue Founder and CEO David
Neeleman Beats the Competition.. .Even in the World's Most Turbulent Industry.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.:Hoboken, NJ.

Xenakis, J. J. (1997). "Workers in the world disperse!" CFO. 13 (10), pp. 79-85.

Zakaria, Fareed. (2008). The Post-American World. W.W. Norton and

Company, Inc.: New York.

Zaltman, G and Moorman, C. (1988). "The Importance of Personal Trust in the Use of
Research." Journal of Advertising Research. October/November.

161
 Appendix A

Survey Respondent Analysis

Industry Type

Irxjusfi / (>pe The indusir, IT* Aim tt ycuaie enq^gpJ t>i m whi h yu

Response Breakdown

193'V'n A/r-ounting j Finance ' Barking

1741a Sale-; /Marketing

73% Other
2«^»
1 4 i>',v 17 4%3
7 3% Management (Senior / Corporate)
? aB> 7 3" a 7 3% gfc
73% Healfi CaiefPhwical&Mental)
tht i- M m i > - n i - i t H f i l t h F1u ill n thnt
SD% E duration
j t l-i I J MJ h n
3 4 Q% nffrere
M nt t

Job Time

l«*M?ft ol job tini** at vmii n»«tt.nt posiltr-n Oi Hnlii-tfY hi •* t""""^ ' 1 ! ?

N/A0 95K Response Breakdown

L e s s t h a n 1 y e a r 7 3%

4-53% L o n q e r t h a n 7 •/ears

4 - 7 years 2 0 6% 252% 1 3 years

L o n g e r t h a n 7 year 20.6% 4-7 y e a r ;

73% Less t h a n 1 year

0 9% N;*

1-3 years 2 5 2%

162
Gender

G^iltl"*] •*

Response Breakdown

53 7% Female

463% Male

Male 46 3K

- Female 53 7%

Age

¥>"ji v\e j t y o w U«J hi I n J . i f '

55 + 6 9 * Response Breakdown

18-24 IB 15S 519% S5-54

26 1% 25-?4

15 1 % 13-24

- 35-54 51 8% 6 9% 55+

25-34 26 1%

163
Education Level

vVh.it «• ym.i t»iJi(..,»!lot' II-HVP (C i\>\\ I "H :iii|l'*"? •",vl c*i>-irr il'-l •:>:!.)

Response Breakdown

60.1 % Post-graduate degree

15.1% Associate degree

14.7% Bachelor's degree

8.7% Some college, no degree

l r » 1»-'n 14 ?'S»

4- *»^ 1.4% Graduated high school or equivalent

Ffc-K-t- So m§ Cr i ^ u ^ ' ^ d
q isA ua ts d sqr*j« !bqiffi„ r»~< h stih
dsqrss 'i < r -*<; schooler
sqy fa'SLfe nt

Country of Employment

f Kin* v li-it i L . r t i v I|I- v •'.! '.'."•"> \* IS«>• M "lit I I U I - . ' c i iifi t ,iii%(-..-i -,i|

A s a 0.5K
Response Breakdown:

39.5% United Slates

0.5% Asia

*- Unitod Starts 99.5K

164
Teleworker Status and Regularity

Are vnu a remote rcnrkcr or fdewrrkcr (f-mplnyc-d lor a rmnpnny ^nrl

Response Breakdown:
Yes 21 . 1 !
78.9% No

21.1% Yes

No 78.9$

"\ ;\;>i*m<; i i i - i i j ' t - y, IHI'.V ruir,v ii.iv . i.'ft i i t f r i l - .tu y*:.ia '/.oik u,rl of "><

Response Breakdown:

752% N/A

115% More than 12 days per month

5£l% 1-3 days per month

4.1% 4-7 days per month

11,5% Sr',"j A .* '

4.1% 3-12 days p e r mo nth

M.'-fHiP 1-1.
V .h»' c-r •r n*n p-t n ,-.>,--,
per VII nth

165
Current Position

What is ,oiik anient Position'? Lmplayev in Hanaij<*iTip»t

Response Breakdown

52B'Mi Employee

47 ZVa Management

1anagement47 2% — — ,,, '<

i h l
~ — Employee 52 8%

166
 Appendix B

Survey Instrument and Link

WPMS and Remote Work Environments

Link: http://edu.sureevqizmo.com/s3/495597/WPMS-
and-Remote-Work»Environments

Page One

) Industry Type: The industry in which you are engaged or in which

you have a history of engagement?
() Accounting / Finance / Banking
() Administration / Clerical / Reception
() Advertisement / PR
() Architecture / Design
() Arts/Leisure / Entertainment
() Beauty / Fashion
() Buying / Purchasing
() Construction
() Consulting
( ) Customer Service
() Distribution
() Education
() Health Care (Physical & Mental)
() Human resources management
() Management (Senior / Corporate)
() News / Information
() Operations / Logistics

167
( ) Planning (Meeting, Events, etc.)
( ) Production
() Real Estate
( ) Research
( ) Restaurant / Food service
( ) Sales / Marketing
( ) Science / Technology / Programming
( ) Social service
( ) Student
( ) Other
( ) N/A - Unemployed / Retired / Homemaker

) Length of job time at your current position or industry type (See

#1)?
( ) Less than 1 year
() 1-3 years
( ) 4-7 years
() Longer than 7 years
() N/A

) Gender?
() Male
() Female

) Your age at your last birthday?

() under 18
()18-24
()25-34
()35-54
()55+

168
) What is your education level? (Check the highest level of
completion.)
( ) 12th grade or less
( ) Graduated high school or equivalent
( ) Some college, no degree
( ) Associate degree
( ) Bachelor's degree
( ) Post-graduate degree

) From what country do you work? (Select the most correct answer,
please.)
( ) United States
( ) Europe
( ) Asia
( ) Middle East
( ) China
( ) India
()Japan
( ) Korea
( ) Russia
( ) Viet Nam
( ) Other

) Are you a remote worker or teleworker (employed for a company

and allowed to work outside the office on a regular basis—more than
20 hrs/week)?
()Yes
()No

169
) If working remotely, how many days per month do you work out of
the office?
( ) 1 -3 days per month
( ) 4-7 days per month
( ) 8-12 days per month
( ) More than 12 days per month
()N/A

) What is your current Position? Employee or Management

( ) Employee
( ) Management

Likert Scale explanation: Willingness to consider a remote work environment on a

regular basis.

1.) Based on the ability to communicate with peers and supervisors

from any location, in the current work environment, how would you
rank your willingness to work remotely or allow offsite work to take
place, regularly?
( ) 1. Most Unwilling
( ) 2. Unwilling
( ) 3. Disinterested
( ) 4. Indifferent
( ) 5. Interested
( ) 6. Willing
( ) 7. Most Willing

2.) Based on the current work environment's ability to create and

maintain control mechanisms to encourage personnel to maintain
and adjust to agreed performance goals, how would you rank your
willingness to work (or allow work) outside of the office on a regular
basis?
( ) 1. Most Unwilling

170
( ) 2. Unwilling
( ) 3. Disinterested
( ) 4. Indifferent
( ) 5. Interested
( ) 6. Willing
( ) 7. Most Willing

3.) Based on the current work environment's ability to offer sure and
focused feedback between employees and management, how would
you rank your willingness to work (or allow work) out of the office on
a regular basis?
( ) 1. Most Unwilling
( ) 2. Unwilling
( ) 3. Disinterested
( ) 4. Indifferent
( ) 5. Interested
( ) 6. Willing
( ) 7. Most Willing

4.) Based on the freedom of employee's to choose their schedule and

set goals of productivity within the current work environment, how
would you rank your willingness to work (or allow work) out of the
office on a regular basis?
( ) 1. Most Unwilling
( ) 2. Unwilling
( ) 3. Disinterested
( ) 4. Indifferent
( ) 5. Interested
() 6. Willing
( ) 7. Most Willing

171
5.) Based on your current work environment's ability to articulate and
implement agreed work performance measurement, how would you
rank your willingness to work (or allow work) in a distributed (out of
the office) environment on a regular basis?
( ) 1. Most Unwilling
( ) 2. Unwilling
( ) 3. Disinterested
( ) 4. Indifferent
( ) 5. Interested
( ) 6. Willing
( ) 7. Most Willing

6.) Based on the level of management awareness of personnel work

habits/ethic within the current work environment, how would you
rank your willingness to work remotely or allow work to be done
offsite on a regular basis?
() 1. Most Unwilling
( ) 2. Unwilling
( ) 3. Disinterested
( ) 4. Indifferent
( ) 5. Interested
( ) 6. Willing
( ) 7. Most Willing

7.) Based on the current work environment's ability to offer regular

evaluations of an employee's work, based on agreed performance
measurements , how would you rank your willingness to work
outside (or allow work to be done outside) the office on a regular
basis?
( ) 1. Most Unwilling
() 2. Unwilling
() 3. Disinterested
() 4. Indifferent

172
( ) 5. Interested
( ) 6. Willing
( ) 7. Most Willing

8.) Based on the current work environment's ability to manage

employee promotion/succession within the company, based on
agreed performance standards, how would you rank your willingness
to work (or allow work to be done) outside the office on a regular
basis?
( ) 1. Most Unwilling
( ) 2. Unwilling
( ) 3. Disinterested
() 4. Indifferent
( ) 5. Interested
( ) 6. Willing
( ) 7. Most Willing

9.) Training #1: Based on the importance of communication in a

remote work environment...
> Workforce Performance Management Systems (WPMS) provide a
software solution to communicate personnel performance.
> WPMS provides a technology-driven (web-based) communication
tool for all parties involved in measurement, maintenance, and
reporting of workforce performance.

Question: If this functionality of WPMS were applied to your current

workplace, how would you rate your willingness to work remotely or
allow your direct reports to work out of the office on a regular basis?
() 1. Most Unwilling
() 2. Unwilling
() 3. Disintersted
() 4. Indifferent
() 5. Interested
() 6. Willing

173
( ) 7. Most Willing

10.) Training #2: Based on the awareness that people will trust in a
control system before trusting another person...
> Workforce Performance Management Systems provide tools that
require, track, report, and adjust to the agreed performance control
expectations.
> Agreed measurements and outcomes are aligned with corporate
goals and shared with all operative parties, as maintained and
determined by management.
> Performance is consistently tracked by management and reported
to all parties.

Question: If this functionality of WPMS were applied to the current

workplace how would you rank your willingness to work remotely, or
allow work to take place out of the office on a regular basis?
() 1. Most Unwilling
() 2. Unwilling
() 3. Disinterested
() 4. Indifferent
() 5. Interested
() 6. Willing
( ) 7. Most Willing

174
11.) Training #3: Based on the importance of the desired performance
goals of the workforce being tied to the corporate mission...
> Workforce Performance Management Systems allow for direct
access to pre-programmed performance standards (web-based)
developed by management and related to corporate mission
standards.
> WPMS provide access and comparison to performance standards
to allow for inner-organizational and cross-organizational goal
alignment.

Question: If this functionality of WPMS were applied to the current

workplace how would you rank your willingness to work remotely or
allow work to take place out of the office on a regular basis?
() 1. Most Unwilling
() 2. Unwilling
() 3. Disinterested
() 4. Indifferent
() 5. Interested
() 6. Willing
() 7. Most Willing

12.) Training #4: Based on the importance of input from all parties in
the performance management process...
> Workforce Performance Management Systems collect input from
employees and management in preparing performance standards.
> WPMS electronically stores and applies collected input to desired
performance measurements.
> Employee/Management input is automatically viewed when
analyzing individual performance.

Question: If this functionality of WPMS were applied to your current

work environment, how would you rank your willingness to work
remotely or allow work to take place out of the office on a regular
basis?
() 1. Most Unwilling
() 2. Unwilling
() 3. Disinterested
() 4. Indifferent

175
( ) 5. Interested
( ) 6. Willing
( ) 7. Most Willing

13.) Training #5: Based on the requirement that performance

measurements in a workplace must clearly be defined and
understood by all operative parties...
> Workforce Performance Management Systems provide electronic
goals-based competency models for measuring performance in
relation to defined goals.
> Once compared to competency models, WPMS tools can provide a
summary review to all parties involved.

Question: If this functionality of WPMS were applied to the current

workplace how would you rank your willingness to work remotely or
allow work to take place out of the office on a regular basis?
( ) 1, Most Unwilling
( ) 2. Unwilling
( ) 3. Disinterested
( ) 4. Indifferent
( ) 5. Interested
( ) 6. Willing
( ) 7. Most Willing

14.) Training #6: Based on the awareness that assessment of the

performance of employees and management must be tied to key
success criteria to provide effective feed back...
> Workforce Performance Management Systems electronically
provide detailed guidance through the evaluation process.
> Self analysis and management review compare performance to the
developed standards, then shares the analysis with all operative
parties.
> Legal scanning of all reviews is available through the WPMS to help
avoid legal and ethical issues in the evaluation/feedback process.

Question: If this functionality of WPMS were applied to your current

176
work environment, how would you rate your willingness to work out
of the office (or allow work to take place out of the office) on a regular
basis?
( ) 1. Most Unwilling
( ) 2. Unwilling
( ) 3. Disinterested
( ) 4. Indifferent
( ) 5. Interested
( ) 6. Willing
( ) 7. Most Willing

15.) Training #7: Based on the awareness that employee/management

feedback is essential to create positive/negative reinforcement of
existing performance standards...
> By providing electronic feedback and motivation tools Workforce
Performance Management Systems encourage behavioral change by
advising personnel of current performance and quantifying that
performance when compared to agreed expectations.
> 360-degree reviews can be automatically populated to analyze
employee/management performance and key compensation
decisions to performance achievement.
> Gap analysis from supervisor input provides clear view of areas of
improvement and the time constraints involved.

Question: If this functionality of WPMS were applied to the current

workplace, how would you rank your willingness to work remotely or
allow work out of the office on a regular basis?
( ) 1. Most Unwilling
( ) 2. Unwilling
( ) 3. Disinterested
( ) 4. Indifferent
( ) 5. Interested
() 6. Willing
() 7. Most Willing

177
16.) Training #8: Based on the need for support from all successive
levels of management in an effort to groom internal candidates for
promotion...
> Succession forecasting is available by electronically
comparing/analyzing candidate performance with position-skill
requisites.
> Individuals can be selected and ranked according to programmed
key position success skills they have demonstrated.
> Succession modeling can allow management and employees to
design success programs for valid promotion candidates.
> Compensation increases can be directly linked to performance
standards.
> External candidates can be entered and compared to internal
position performance-success indicators.

Question: If this functionality of WPMS were applied to the current

workplace how would you rank your willingness to work remotely or
allow work out of the office on a regular basis?
() 1. Most Unwilling
( ) 2. Unwilling
( ) 3. Disinterested
() 4. Indifferent
( ) 5. Interested
() 6. Willing
() 7. Most Willing

Thank You!

Thank you for taking our survey. Your response is very important to
us.

178
 Kenneth E. Jones Jr.
3109 So. Poplar Ave.
Broken Arrow, OK 74012
Home/Cell: 918-519-6775
Home/Fax: 918-872-7311
Email: jonsey60@gmail.com

Current Position:
Instructor (Full-Time/Non-Tenured) of Information Systems (IS) and Marketing of
Information Technology
Department of Information Systems and Technology
College of Business and Technology
Northeastern State University—Broken Arrow
3100 E. New Orleans
Broken Arrow, OK 74014
Office: 918-449-6518
Email: jonesOl 3(Tuisuok.edu
Web page : http:/ ''arapaho,nsuok.edu/-ioncs013

Teaching Experience:

• (August 2002-Present) Full-Time Instructor for Northeastern State

University—College of Business and Technology—IS and
Technology Department, Tahlequah, Broken Arrow and Muskogee ,
OK campuses.
• May 2007-March 2008) Created courses for John Brown
University's School of Graduate Studies (MBA Program) in
Marketing Strategies and Strategic Analysis and Design.
• (January 2002-July 2002) Adjunct Instructor of MIS for
Northeastern State University—College of Business and Technology

Education Background:

• 2011 Doctor of Business Administration Anderson University-

Falls School of Business (ACBSP accredited). Emphasis:
Management with Management Information Systems approach.
• 2001 Masters Business Administration (Electives emphasis in
Computer Resource Information Systems Management) Webster
University: St. Louis, MO
• 1997 Bachelor of Science - Organizational Management John
Brown University: Siloam Springs, AR
• 1994 Associate of Arts in Computer Science Westark College,
Ft. Smith, AR
• 1977 Diploma in Christian Education Preston Road Center for
Christian Education, Irving, TX. Primary courses were in Bible,
Biblical Languages, and Christian Counseling

1
Courses Developed:

• Marketing Principles (Undergraduate) Lecture and Video Conference

• Marketing and Sales of High-Tech Products and Services
(Undergraduate)Lecture and Online
• Principles of Information Technology and Principles of Information Systems
(Undergraduate) Lecture, Blended, and Online
• Business Communications (Undergraduate) Online, Lecture, and Blended
• Computers in Modern Society (Undergraduate) Lecture
• Product Development and End-User Adoption (Undergraduate) Online
• Negotiation and Proposal Management (Undergraduate) Lecture and Blended
• Supply Chain Management-Capstone (Undergraduate) Online
• Marketing Strategies (Graduate) Lecture and Hybrid
• Strategic Analysis and Design (Graduate) Lecture

Corporate Work History :

• October 2001 - Present—Owner (Jones FM, L.L.C., now dba Legion

Associates, LLC) Tahlequah, OK
Key: Marketing and sales consulting for Information Technology/High
Technology firms
o Consulted with over 18 clients on a pro bono basis since 2001, while
enrolled in doctoral classes and full-teaching load
o Quantified/qualified products and services offered by high-tech firms

• August 2001 - August 2002—Integrated Systems Sales (Drake Systems,

Inc.), Tulsa, OK
Key: Developed a customer feedback networkfor reminding and gaining
positive feedback.
o Offered commercial consultation to technology consumers making
hardware purchases
o Trained commercial office personnel in the use of integrated
systems—hardware.
o Performed systems audits to relate needs to capabilities, thus better
aligning sales to customer needs—solving problems, thus more
and more profitable sales,
o Developed a customer feedback network which guided customers
to offer compliments or critiques about specific CRM events-
creating a tremendous client referral system—encouraging account
executives and providing documentation of capability to potential
clientele.

2
 • February 2001 - August 2001—Integrated Systems Commercial Sales
Manager/VP (Global Business Solutions), Little Rock, AR
*Global became the marketing representative for Ultima's document-imaging
software in AR
Key: Created Team Sales approach which increased closing ratio by
267%
o Created and maintained a client database to help department direct
follow-up activities,
o Installed and trained sales department on the use of database and
contact software applications—Business Mapping, Act 4.0, MS
Excel,
o Negotiated the exclusive acquisition of document-management
software product—increased call to appointment ratio from 10% to
30% in first month of offering.
o Created Team Sales approach which keyed individual sales
executive skills to unique key functions—increased closing ratio
by 267%
o Offered consultation to technology consumers making software
and hardware purchases for commercial or educational
applications.
o Performed minor troubleshooting of networked and non-networked
systems, thus accelerating the implementation of the right
technician to the right problem.
o Educated office personnel in ihe use of integrated systems—
hardware and software—creating efficiency/effectiveness.

• Aug.2000 - August. 2001—Territorial Sales Director - (Ultima Business

Solutions—Software company) Office in Little Rock, AR
Key: Developed marketing strategy for new software company for 33
different industry types

o Determined specifications for hardware needs to implement

document-imaging software application,
o Designed database format for document-imaging software for 33
different industry applications,
o Developed marketing strategy for new software company for the
Arkansas area—developed sales approach for over 33 different
industry types.

• December 1999 - August 2000—Fleet/Commercial Sales Mgr (Landers

Auto Group)
Little Rock, AR
Key: Implemented fleet communications between 12 dealerships offering
financing, speeding delivery, increasing closing ratios

o Managed the Fleet/Commercial sales for the largest Daimler-

3
 Chrysler dealership in the world
o Adapted a successful network of build-to-order and/or trade-to-
order within Daimler-Chrysler dealers in region to meet fleet
demand and increase call to closing ratios
o Implemented communication links between 12 dealerships in
Landers group in order to offer customer selection of
fleet/commercial products—including increasing financing
options, speeding up order to delivery times, increasing closing
ratios, thereby building Landers brand image throughout region.
o Created regional mindset for department with previously
established buyers (commercial/wholesale) within 250-mile radius.
Tulsa and NW Arkansas dealership acquisitions may be traced to
this market expansion.

• July 1996 - December 1999—Retail/Commercial Sales Mgr - (Randall

Holding Co.)

Ft. Smith and Van Buren, AR

Key: Established one of the most successful Commercial sales
departments in the Southeast

o
Established one of the most successful Commercial sales
departments in the Southeast Region of the U. S. (in relation to the
size of the market).
o Brought dealership sales into consistent top-three standings among
its peers; tripled sales production in first 24 months of commercial
sales production
o Trained retail and commercial sales personnel; received regular
bonuses from customer satisfaction scores from manufacturer.
o Created a network of key wholesale buyers, thus creating greater
trade value for customers
o Of a 12-person sales team, individually produced (directly or
indirectly) over 80% of the organization's sales volume of 100+
units), utilizing and teaching negotiating skills, prospecting,
listening to customer's needs, work ethic, and never giving up!
Business Ownership: (Owned and Operated the Following Businesses Since 1983)

• (October 2001 to Present) Jones FM LLC/Legion Associates LLC -

IT Marketing Consulting
• (October 1993-August 1997) Shine Shop - Commercial Automotive
Detail, Ft. Smith, AR
• (June 1992-July 1994) DJ's Day Care - Professional Day Care
Service, Ft. Smith, AR
• (August 1988-October 1990) Four-Mile Kitchen, Inc. - Full-Service
Restaurant & Catering, Ft. Gibson, OK

4
 • (March 1983-October 1984) Jones Executive Services -
Commercial Janitorial & Lawn Care and Landscaping, Ft. Smith,
AR and Area

Highlight of Industry Skills and Distinctions:

• Integrated Systems and Technology:
> Developed and maintained a client database to help
department direct follow-up activities.
> Installed and trained sales department on the use of database
and contact software applications—Business Mapping, Act
4.0, MS Excel, Power Point.
> Developed specifications for hardware database format
needed to implement document-imaging software.
> Offered consultation to technology consumers making
software and hardware purchases for commercial or
educational applications.
> Helped educate and train office personnel in the use of
integrated systems—hardware and software.
• Sales and Marketing—Commercial and High-Tech:
> Established one of the most successful commercial sales
departments in the Southeast Region of the U S—in relation
to the market size. (i.e. Consistent top-three standings among
peers and tripled sales production.)
> Developed retail/commercial sales training, and received
regular bonuses from customer satisfaction scores.
> Developed marketing strategy for new software company for
the Arkansas area—developed sales approach for over 30
different industry types via interviews/research.
• Financial Services:
> Series 6 and 63 licensed security representative for Primerica
and MILICO.
> Life and A/H licensed in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas
• Health, Safety, and Environmental:
> OSHA certified instructor and sales representative with
Green Guard—St. Louis, MO.
> Trained in First Aid and Safety legislation—federal and state
levels—AR, OK, and LA.
> Service, sales, and training of corporate clientele on EPA
regulations and Haz Mat management with Safety Clean
Corporation—Chicago, IL.
> Tested chemical waste-streams and establish handling and
withdrawal of chemical waste.

Professional Memberships:

5
 Member since 2009—ISM Institute of Supply Management
Member since 2007—USDLA United States Distance Learning
Association
Member since 2006 — SHRM Society of Human Resource
Management
Member since 2005 - AOM Academy of Management
Member since 2005 - AITP Association of Information
Technology Professionals
Member since 2003- AMA American Marketing Association
Member since 2003 - CBFA Christian Business Faculty
Association

Professional Meetings Attended:

April 2010 - Oklahoma Higher Education Teaching & Learning

Conference at NSU-Broken Arrow
May 2009 - Faculty Professional Seminar at John Brown
University campus at Siloam Sprs., AR.
October 2008 - Lean 101 Training Conference at Trane Mfg in Ft
Smith, AR
April 2008—John Brown University Professional Development
Workshop attended—Siloam Sprs, AR.
April 2008 - Oklahoma Higher Education Teaching & Learning
Conference —NSU-Tahlequah
February 2008 - SAP Curriculum Conference in Atlanta, GA,
specialized seminar on "SAP Business Intelligence".
February 2007—Service Learning Seminar at NSU-Broken Arrow
campus.
February 2007—Attended Professional Studies Faculty
Development Conference sponsored by John Brown University,
Siloam Springs, AR.
November 2006—Attended service learning seminar—Developing
a Service Learning Course at Southeastern State University,
Durant, OK.

Research Activity and Presentations:

October 2010 - "Going Home: New Technology's Impact on

Remote Work Engagement", research proposal presentation at
Advanced Business Research Symposium, University of Arkansas-
Ft. Smith, AR.
October 2009 - "Actively Teaching Diversity" at National
Christian Business Faculty Association Conference at John Brown
University, Siloam Sprs, AR.

6
 • July 2009- "Supply Chain-ge: Biblical Trust in the Workplace"
at National International Institute of Christian Studies-Vision
Conference in Kansas City, MO.
• Oct 2008-ACBSP Regional Conference Oral Roberts University,
Tulsa, OK, "Experiencing Multicultural Environments in Business
Communications".
• July 2008 - "Faithful Over Little" at National International
Institute of Christian Studies-Vision Conference in Kansas City,
MO.
• November 2007 - Oklahoma Distance Learning Association
Conference, OSU-Tulsa-presented "Teaching Negotiation Training
in Online Learning Environments Utilizing Blackboard 6.0."
• October 2007— Project Management Institute, OSU-Tulsa
Conference: "Can Availability of Workforce Performance
Management Systems Affect the Decision to Engage in Home-
Based Work Environments by Enhancing the Perception of
Management and Employee Trust and Control?"
• April 2007—Presented self-developed online teaching
methodology TABLE (Team Activity-Based Learning
Environment) at Oklahoma Higher Learning Conference.
• Summer 2006—Conducted Grant Research Project with Dr. Emst
Bekkering researching and developing Game-Based Learning for
Higher Education.
• June 2006—Co-Presented with Dr. Gene Kozlowski and Dr. Ernst
Bekkering, research proposal and faculty development activity at
the ACBSP National Conference (Pre-Conference Workshop) in
Chicago, IL.

Consulting Activities:

• May 2010 - University of Arkansas-Little Rock (UALR), "Great

Cities Field Trip "-visited small communities and discussed
telecommuting impact on strategic growth.
• Fall 2009 - presented community development ideas at UALR.
Advising on remote work impact and telework center viability for
North and Central Arkansas communities.
• July 2007 to Fall 2009 - developed and submitted a template for
Community Telework Center for the City of Broken Arrow,
quantified cost of developing center in rural communities.
• Spring/Summer 2009—Development of Online MBA Program for
John Brown University's Online MBA Program
• Spring 2009 to Present - Co-work with Dr. Jim
Phillips/Developing Metrics on Faith Integration and Business
Success model for consulting in industry research

7
 • Fall 2008 to Present - Working with Junior Achievement of E.
Oklahoma and Rick Bennett to engage University Students and
incorporate more teachers and industry representatives into Tulsa-
area schools.
• October 2007 to May 2009—Worked with group called Pocket
Change to develop web-based remote change agents, promoting
behavior change via technology applications and social
networking.
• June 2007 - Co-work with Roy Pense of PenseTech Software
concerning pricing and market strategy, Ft. Smith, AR on rollout
of new tax collections software for county tax collectors in
Arkansas.
• June 2007- Co-work with Dr. Michael Callaway, MD/MBA with
Cooper Clinic, Ft. Smith, AR, concerning targeted marketing of
medical services and niche tactics and communications technology
for differentiation effects.

Professional Growth Activities:

• Spring 2004-Fall 2010 - Regularly attend Tulsa Chapter AMA

Luncheons and Seminars
• Spring 2007-Spring 2009 - Regularly attend Association of
Information Technology Professionals AITP Green Country
Chapter meetings
• Spring 2009 to Present - Regularly attend NAPM Luncheons in
Tulsa, OK.

Business Seminars and Training Offered:

• Fall 2009 to Present - Instructor for Union High School, Tulsa,

OK, Union Collegiate Academy, "Business Negotiation Skills".
• Summer 2008 to Present - Creating Sales Training Workshop for
the Adult Learning and Professional Development Program at
NSU-BA.
• May 2008 - Presented "Effective Business Communication" to the
Muskogee, OK, Chamber of Commerce, Success Expo 2008.
• November 2007 to Present - Trained and prepared NSU-Broken
Arrow students to deliver four-hour service learning seminar on
"Job Search" and "Conflict Resolution" training at North
Intermediate High School, Broken Arrow, OK.
• Spring 2007 - Developed "Business Employment Ethics" 2- hour
seminar for South Intermediate High School, Broken Arrow, OK.
• March 2007 and October 2006 - Developed and taught a 5-week
(5-hour) "Business Negotiation Skills" course for North
Intermediate High School, Broken Arrow, OK.

8
 • 2003 to Present - Developed a certification-level course on
"Marketing of Information Technology" for the NSU-Broken
Arrow campus. Certifications offered included: Time Resource
Management; Customer Relation Management (Hardware and
Software); Business Negotiation Skills; RFP and Proposal
Management; and Team Marketing and Sales Management.

Professional Presentations/Publications:

• March 2011—"Going Home: New Technology's Impact on Remote

Work Engagement" , Advances in Business Research, Vol. 1, No.
1,2010, pp. 168-175.
• January 2011 published 22 online tests (Blackboard platform) for
text: Supply Management, 8* Ed., by Burt, Petcavage, and
Pinkerton. Now being distributed by McGraw-Hill publishers.
• October 2010 "Going Home: New Technology's Impact on
Remote Work Engagement" pre/post research in remote work
environments to the University of Arkansas-Ft. Smith, AR. Paper
has been accepted for publication in Advanced Business Research
Symposium proceedings and potential publication in first
Advanced Business Research Journal.
• November 2007—Published pedagogical paper at Journal of
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning for Christians m Higher
Education. Paper topic: "Teaching the Ethical Use of Product
Specific Incentives for marketing Students in a Christian Higher-
Education Environment"

Institutional Services Performed:

• April 2010 - Assigned to the Futures Institute for NSU.

• August 2009 - Working with Dr. Michael Landry and Dale
Schrimshaw to promote the SCM degree for NSU throughout NE
Oklahoma and NW Arkansas.
• Fall 2009 to Present -Visited, taught, and engaged in community
efforts 22 high schools, community colleges in the Tulsa/ Broken
Arrow area—including 5 high-risk schools
• Fall 2009 to Present - Visited 57 companies in the NE Oklahoma
and NW and W Arkansas area; Worked with students to present
and publish over 26 projects.
• April 2009 - Worked with NSU-Broken Arrow Enrollment Office
to bring Webster High Students for Tour and College planning Day
• 2008/2009 Served on Faculty Governance Taskforce Committee
• May 2008—Met with Robert Half Technology Regional Director
for alignment of job openings for IS majors and internships in the
Tulsa area.

9
 • April 2008—Conducted four-hour service learning project with
Business Communication student/instructors for NIHS
• April 2003 to Present—Serve on IS 3063 course development
committee in the selection of new text and common pre/post quiz.
• March 2008—Developed six-part SAP Introduction series for IS
3063 students (online and lecture) and other business majors.
• November 2007 to present—selected to serve on the Faculty
Strategic Taskforce for College of Business and Technology -
Retention Committee.
• September 2007—Coordinated with Hesco Motors in Tulsa,OK, to
host a guest speaker from Siemens Corporation (Thomas Eibner)
on the NSU-Broken Arrow campus. The topic: Global Supply-
Chain Management.
• Summer 2007—Began serving on the SCM Curriculum
Committee. As a part of this committee, have contributed and/or
compiled over twenty books on the topics of Supply Chain
Management, Lean Systems, Quality Control, and Logistics within
the NSU- Broken Arrow library in a reserved grouping for SCM
students.

Recognition and Honors:

• 2010/2011 Nominated for NSU's Circle of Excellence m Teaching

• 2009/2010 Nominated for NSU's Circle of Excellence in Teaching
• 2008/2009 -Nominated for NSU's Circle of Excellence in Service
• 2005/2006—Nominated by students for Who's Who Among
America's Teachers.
• 2005-2006- Elected President-Elect for the AMA-Tulsa activity
year.
• February 2004—Elected to the Board of Directors of the American
Marketing Association—Tulsa Chapter.
• 1999-2000—Lexington's Who's Who Among Executives and
Professionals

10