See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/26513129

Exploring the diversity of mobile working: a detailed examination on the

sequences of workplaces and job satisfaction

Article  in  Journal of E-working · January 2008

Source: DOAJ

CITATIONS READS

6 274

2 authors, including:

Diane-Gabrielle Tremblay
Télé-université, Université du Québec, Canada
414 PUBLICATIONS   2,049 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Télétravail; avantages enjeux et défis View project

Alliance de recherche université-communauté (ARUC) sur la Gestion des âges et des temps sociaux (GATS) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Diane-Gabrielle Tremblay on 06 August 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The Journal of E-working
Pages 47-66, Vol 2, April 2008

Exploring the diversity of mobile working: a detailed

examination on the sequences of workplaces and job
satisfaction

Laurence Thomsin
University of Liège
Belgium

Diane-Gabrielle Tremblay
University of Québec in Montréal (Téluq)
Canada

Abstract
Telework has been the subject of increasing interest in recent years, especially in Europe
since the European Commission’s adoption of a framework agreement on telework in
2002. The findings presented here stem from a research project conducted in a major
Belgian IT organisation. The research focused on mobile work, which encompasses
working in clients' offices, hotels and elsewhere. It is a broader concept than the more
popular traditional forms of telework, which is confined to working from home. The
research examines in detail the sequences of workplaces encountered by mobile workers,
which is one of the important features of the research. This aspect is of particular
significance since mobile work is considered to have increased in recent years but few
surveys have analysed this phenomenon in terms of contents, sequences of workplaces,
and as a source of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Our contribution lies in a better
understanding of the reality of mobile work, as telework in the traditional sense appears
to be moving in the direction of mobile work.

Keywords: telework; mobile work; home working; workplace; work organisation; job
satisfaction.

The Journal of E-working 47

 1. Introduction
Telework has generated significant interest in recent years in the wake of travel reduction, oil
consumption and related pollution issues (Benchimol, 1994), enhancement of quality of life
(QoL) and improved organisation of personal work (Cefrio, 2001, Tremblay, 2002).

Telework has also come into focus in Europe since the European Commission’s release of the
2002 framework agreement on telework, which triggered renewed awareness in several countries.
The findings, herein, presented stem from a survey conducted in Belgium in a major Information
Technology (IT) organisation. Following the recommendations in the European Framework
Agreement on Telework, it was of interest to see how telework was actually being practised in an
organisation that has been operating so for a number of years. It should be noted that the survey
examined mobile work, which is a broader concept than home working mediated by information
technologies (Cefrio, 2001), since it not only covers traditional teleworkers, working from home
for an organisation, but also individuals working at clients’ premises and other locations. In the
context of new developments in what has been known as teleworking, and also in the face of
many difficulties to define telework and mobile work, and to know what to include in the various
definitions (Hadn and Brynin, 2005; Sullivan, 2003; Hardill, I. and A. Green, 2003), we wanted
to go further and better understand precisely what is covered by the concept of mobile work and
to what extent it actually differs from telework, as defined previously.

We therefore decided to conduct an in-depth study of an organisation where mobile work was
developed in order to better understand how this reality unfolds, since much less work has been
done on mobile work than on telework per se. In this case study, it is possible for the mobile
workers to spend part of their working time at clients’ premises. We, therefore, wanted to
examine the precise sequences of workplaces that these mobile workers encounter, which
represents one of the original aspects of the research, and is important to understand this new
form of telework, that mobile work represents. This aspect is of particular significance to firms
and to workers, as well as for managers and human resources or industrial relations specialists,
since mobile work (in various locations) is considered to have increased in recent years
(Kurkland and Bailey, 1999), yet few surveys have measured the related work routines with some
accuracy, nor tried to identify the associated challenges. It is, thus, to better understand the new
forms of telework, which are now often referred to as mobile work, that we undertook this
research with an organisation known to be at the forefront of innovation in work organisation,
and particularly in mobile work.

This paper is divided into two sections. In the first section, the research question is discussed and
the scope of telework in various countries is estimated, to give a certain idea on the importance of
the issue. In the second part, the findings of this research are examined from different
perspectives: populations involved in telework, sequences of workplaces encountered, and
sources of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction, which give an indication of the important
challenges to which mobile work leads. The conclusion looks into the aspirations for telework,
and the possibility that this particular form of telework may increase.

2. Research Question

The Journal of E-working 48

First of all, it must be noted that definitions of telework have been the subject of debate over
many years. Indeed, even a special issue of the journal New Technology, Work and Employment
(vol. 18:3) devoted to the theme of telework was not based on a single definition and several
papers had different definitions and objects of analysis. One of the papers in the issue (Sullivan,
2003) is centred on the aspect of definitions and the main conclusion is that project-specific
decisions concerning what to include and what to exclude when studying various modalities of
remote working or teleworking depend on the questions researchers want to address. Obviously,
remote work and telework cover a diversity of situations, and the expression ‘mobile work’ is
perhaps more appropriate, since telework tends to usually refer to work from home, while the
present situation has diversified the places where people actually work, with the development of
laptops. That very expression is used in the organisation surveyed and includes a mixture of
work locations attended in the process, often by a single individual.

Telework, generally, refers to work performed remotely from the employer’s premises, through
IT access, yet some teleworkers or distance workers do not have Internet access, as shall be seen,
and such access is an important participation factor.1 Mobile work generally refers to the
possibility of working from home, but also from a client’s site, from a hotel, during commuting
time in public transport2, thus being less limited than telework, although the latter expression is
used by some organisations to refer to a diversity of possibilities, as is the case here for mobile
work. All this leads to conclude that the definitional issue is not clear, as was observed by a few
authors (Sullivan 2003, but also Haddon and Brynin, 2005).

Studies conducted to date, generally, distinguish between several forms of telework (including
home working), and mobile work is one of the rapidly growing practices. Some observers
consider that work in off-site business centres or satellite offices (staffed by employees of a
single company) belongs to the category of mobile work (although some use the word ‘telework’
in this case as well). Some observers consider salespeople or representatives as mobile workers
because they either work at client premises or at home and do not have an office or work area at
headquarters. Call centres, which clusters telephone operators in a location that is separate from
the employing organisation, are generally referred to as telework. As for work performed in
various locations outside the office (salespeople, technicians, etc.), in telecentres or telecottages
which bring together employees of several companies, it can be referred to as telework or mobile
work, depending on the authors. Based on their workplace, teleworkers could, therefore, be
subdivided into three main categories: home teleworkers, teleworkers usually at client’s premises,
and teleworkers in off-site business centres or telecentres. But again, some workers may work in
these various places at different times, and little is known on these practices, which is why we
wanted to look into them in more detail. According to Hafer (1992), many job descriptions are
likely to involve telework where an employee works outside the office, if only one or two days a
week.

The diversity of definitions obviously makes it difficult to put a figure on the phenomenon of
mobile work or telework. The broader the definition, the larger the number of teleworkers within
1
A first version of this paper was published in French, in the journal Interventions économiques, of Québec.
2
While there is indication of people working while traveling to and from work, while they are mobile, this is not
where most of the work is done and the expression ‘mobile work’ usually refers to many other places, as mentioned
above, i.e., mainly the clients’ offices, telecottages, telecentres, etc. This explains that the survey did not address this
specific issue of working in public transportation.

The Journal of E-working 49

a given country (Felstead and Jewson, 2000). The proportion is rather low if restricted to
traditional telework, i.e., between 2% and 7%, while the interest expressed by individuals and
organisations is much higher, between 29% and 41% according to Benchimol (1994) and over
90% in Cefrio (2001).

Some studies claim that between 2% and 18% of the labour force is involved in various forms of
telework settings (Table 1). This data is included to illustrate the range in reported ratios and to
show that, with its significantly higher ratio, the organisation under study is at the forefront of
this phenomenon. Also, being at the forefront of the move towards mobile work, this organisation
may give us some indications of the challenges that lie ahead as IT support the development of
more mobile work in various occupational categories and spheres of economic activity.

Table 1. Ratio of European workers aged 15+ who do some form of telework*
Country 1992 1993 1994 1995** 1996**
% % % % %
Europe 12 Area 4.9 4.2 4.6 4.6 4.6
Belgium 11.6 11.3 11.1 10.8 10.1
Denmark 11.0 10.3 11.8 11.0 11.0
France 0.8 2.6 5.5 5.4 5.0
Germany 5.2 5.1 5.1 4.1 5.0
Greece 1.7 2.3 1.8 1.6 1.4
Ireland 20.6 19.5 18.6 18.2 7.1
Italy 5.5 5.1 4.5 4.6 4.6
Luxemburg 5.5 6.9 6.3 6.9 6.1
Holland 5.6 6.4 6.8 6.8 6.8
Portugal 4.4 3.9 4.0 3.7 3.5
Spain 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6
Great Britain 7.6 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.6
Source: Alan Felstead and Nick Jewson (2000): In Work, at Home, London: Routledge, p. 56. Quoted in Tremblay (2006).
* People who spend at least half their work time at home and can work in other places the rest of the week.
** Europe of 15 countries.

Since the interest for remote forms of work appears to persist, and the possibilities to practice it
appear to be increasing with laptops and IT developments, it is important to study the possible
disadvantages (Chapman et al, 1995), to determine workers’ level of satisfaction and to identify
the benefits and drawbacks involved. As will be discussed later, workers’ level of satisfaction
appears to be high, and employees who perform mobile work see many advantages to this
practice. But it is important to look into this issue since Canadian data indicate that as much as 25
% of the private sector workforce actually do perform part of their work out of the office; these
individuals do some 7 to 8 hours of work outside of the office (Tremblay, Paquet, Najem,
2006a,b), and this may have some positive as well as negative consequences, which have not
been analysed in much detail, especially concerning mobile work, more than traditional telework.
Various issues can be at stake, and authors looked at the spatial dimension and control issue
(Hardill and Green, 2003; Baines and Gelder, 2003, Dimitrova, 2003).

The Journal of E-working 50

Some studies, including Christensen (1987), and Felstead & Jewson (2000), indicate that
telework may generate conflict between professional responsibilities and family or personal
responsibilities due to the presence of work materials in the home and the fact that family
members may interrupt work when it is performed there. However, Tremblay (2003) only
mentions minor adjustment problems while the home is being set up for telework, and her
findings indicate that participants feel that benefits strongly outweigh any drawback. Of course,
the issue of conflicts between work and family mainly arise in the context of work at home,
which is sometimes part of mobile work, as mentioned previously, but is not limited to that.

Other studies indicate that the absence of colleagues and isolation constitutes most serious
inconvenience, especially for people working full time at home. According to a study (Cefrio,
2001), women in slightly larger numbers than men (17% vs 14%) consider the absence of co-
workers as the primary difficulty; although the difference is not large, this may be simply due to
the fact that women give more importance to social relations at work, but this would need to be
studied in more detail, since it has not been addressed in other surveys. Working more does not
appear to be the main problem according to the Cefrio research (2001), although this issue comes
in the forefront in several studies on telework, and could be more important for mobile workers –
this remains to be seen. Some teleworkers report that they experience more difficulty in
maintaining their drive or self-discipline when they work at home, and others mention work-
family conflicts. In this regard, Felstead and Jewson (2000) point out problems related to the
difficulty in establishing boundaries between work, family and leisure, with respect to time and
place. However, many people appear to adapt fairly quickly to their new status and successfully
organise their activities. In short, interest in the issue of home working and how people combine
their professional and personal responsibilities is growing, but previous studies have not yielded
clear-cut conclusions on this subject3. Finally, if the advantages of telework from home have
been the object of research (Baines, 2002; Baines and Gelder, 2003; Cefrio, 2001; Felstead and
Jewson, 2000), the specific advantages and disadvantages of mobile work have not, to our
knowledge, been the object of research, which is why we wanted to analyse this specific group.

It is, therefore, of interest to investigate this new form of telework, which has been referred to as
mobile work, but which includes the traditional definition of telework (as work from home);
indeed, current findings differ and few studies have examined organisations in which mobile
work is common practice as is the case for the organisation surveyed, which promotes this
approach under a formal policy. Also, the present research was undertaken in order to analyse in
more detail, the various sequences of work outside of the office and the places in which these
actually occur, something, which, to our knowledge, had not been done previously.

3. Method and population surveyed

The results presented here stem from a survey conducted in Belgium in a major IT organisation.
Given the increasing interest of many firms for various forms of remote work, it was of interest to
see how mobile work was actually being practiced by an organisation that has been doing so for a
number of years. The survey was conducted in 2004 and intended to examine “mobile work”
which, in the organisation’s view, included the possibility that workers could be found at clients’
premises or elsewhere within their organisations (telecentres, telecottages). Special emphasis was

3
On this subject, see the bibliography for Tremblay et al. (2007, 20066a,b,c).

The Journal of E-working 51

laid on the sequences of workplaces that workers encounter, since it appeared important to define
these sequences, considering the fact that nothing was known of them. This aspect was of
particular significance since mobile work (in various locations) is considered to have increased in
recent years (Kurkland and Bailey, 1999; Cefrion 2001; Tremblay, 2006), yet few surveys have
measured the related work practices with the same level of accuracy.

The participation rate in our Mobile Work Survey was 35.79% (1,343 respondents / 3,752 people
surveyed); it can be hypothesised that those who responded were most involved in mobile work
but some respondents indicate they do not use these options, which are generally available
throughout the firm. Table 2 below indicates the response rate for each of the four sub-groups
studied. Individuals were placed in the teleworker or non-teleworker4 categories depending on
whether they had access to or lacked an Internet connection provided by their organisation.
Employees5 were classified as either staff or coach, the latter entrusted with management or
supervisory duties6.

Table 2. Population surveyed

Responses # Individuals Participation
Rate (%)
Teleworker staff (Group 1) 827 2102 39.34
Group Teleworker coach (Group 2) 111 319 34.80
Non-teleworker staff (Group 3) 385 1263 30.48
Non-teleworker coach (Group 4) 19 68 27.94

Findings about the respondents’ first involvement in mobile work indicate that this practice has
grown more widespread after 2000 and that few individuals had experienced it before 1995.
However, the trend toward mobile work has picked up momentum from 2000 onwards, with
64% of employees surveyed now practicing it, and expectations that it should increase. If this is
a trend, and interviews in the organisation appear to indicate that it could still increase in this
organisation and in others, it is important to understand its evolution and its challenges.

4. Results
It is of interest to note that one-quarter of respondents work in the Brussels metropolitan area,
the others in the outskirts of the metropolitan area, at a distance from the company head office,
thus avoiding traffic congestion. Traffic congestions are often seen as an important aspect of
telework, and apparently also of mobile work (inasmuch as it does not increase mobility by car;
note that a good number of this company’s workers are really mobile and a certain number have
a company car – Table 3). Overall, 52% drive a company car, but 28% are not provided with
dedicated space at the company office to which they report. In terms of demographics,
approximately 78% of respondents are men, and a majority of the respondents are between 25
and 44 years of age (73%), and are married (66%). Parents account for 68% of the respondents.

4
Confirming the use of both terms indifferently, the organisation refers to the program as a Mobile Work program,
but speaks of teleworkers and non teleworkers. We kept these words here in the tables, since this is how they
appeared in the survey done with the organisation.
5
Sub-divided in terms of duty: Administrative – Storeroom – Study/computing – Clerical – Sales – Technical –
Commercial (See Graph 1).
6
Sub-divided in terms of duty: Project management – Management – Business operations – Business enabling –
Experts (See Graph 1).

The Journal of E-working 52

Some work has indicated that parents are more interested or tend to practice telework more than
non-parents (Tremblay, Paquet and Najem, 2006a); this may apply to mobile work as well, but
as was observed, this is not always positive for work-family balance.

Table 3. Conditions of work

Dedicated space at company office Yes 957 71.31
No 85 28.69
Company car Yes 705 52.53
No 637 47.47

Table 4. Demographic
characteristics of mobile
workers
Gender Men 1051 78.32
Women 291 21.68
<25 17 1.27
25-34 438 32.64
Age 35-44 558 41.58
45-54 263 19.60
>54 66 4.92

Single 212 15.80

Married 890 66.32
Marital status Common-law 169 12.59
Separated 22 1.64
Divorced 42 3.13
Remarried 4 0.30
Widowed 3 0.22
Children Yes 925 68.93
No 417 31.07

With respect to the type of occupation, the largest categories include employees with technical
functions (nearly 21%) and management experts (known as professionals in North-America)
(17%). The rest of managers are about 10 % to participate in this form of work, and employees
of various types only 2% to 4 %. In other research (Cefrio, 2001), managers and professionals
have also been identified as the main users of telework, and this may apparently extend to mobile
work.

We determined the extent to which men and women are provided the technical means to practice
telework or mobile work. Ratios differ considerably by gender, which confirms the findings from
other studies with respect to gender-based differentiation of the conditions under which telework
is accomplished (Tremblay, 2001). It was observed that more than 75% of men are provided the
actual means to perform mobile work, while less than half of women are afforded the same
technical option. Although these figures are partly related to the different functions that men and
women perform, the observation is nevertheless significant, since it reflects differing trends in
men’s and women’s work arrangements, as well as their possibilities to do telework or mobile
work, more or less, easily.

As concerns the technical means to perform mobile work, 80% of managers have the technical
means, while employees have between 20% and 30% access, depending on their specific
functions, those having commercial functions having more access, between 60% and 70%
The Journal of E-working 53
depending on the specific category. For most categories, except office employees, therefore,
individuals given the means to practice mobile work outnumber those without this possibility.
Also, some categories, such as storeroom or warehouse personnel, are simply not offered this
option.

The data below (Table 5) describe the work conditions of the teleworking population in terms of
numbers and percentage. Among individuals with the technical means to perform telework
(groups 1 and 2 in Table 3), 82.2% do, in fact, accomplish at least one form of mobile work.
Among individuals who do not have access to an Internet connection, the proportion practicing a
form of mobile work, although partially, is 24.5%, which means that such a connection is not
seen as an essential condition for all forms of mobile work.
People performing mobile work are less likely to hold a dedicated work area at the office to
which they report, and consequently, are more likely to drive a company car. Mobile workers are
mostly men, although in terms of trends, it was noted that in the younger age groups there are
proportionally more women participants. The weight of senior male mobile worker population
clearly accounts for the high percentage of married people who are also parents with one or more
children.

Table 5. Working conditions of people performing mobile work

Gr. 1 & 2 Gr. 3 &4
Freq. % Freq. %
Participation in any Yes 771 82.20 99 24.50
form of mobile work,
No 167 17.80 305 75.50
incl. partially
Note: groups 1 and 2 represent people with the technical potential provided by the company to practice telework;
groups 3 and 4 do have this potential.

Dedicated space at Yes 603 64.29 354 87.62

company office No 335 35.71 50 12.38

Company car Yes 617 65.78 88 21.78

No 321 34.22 316 78.22

Gender Men 807 86.03 244 60.40

Women 131 13.97 160 39.60

<25 7 0.75 10 2.48

25-34 302 32.20 136 33.66
Age 35-44 409 43.60 149 36.88
45-54 181 19.30 82 20.30
>54 39 4.16 27 6.68

Single 136 14.50 76 18.81

Married 640 68.23 250 61.88
Marital status Common-law 110 11.73 59 14.60
Separated 15 1.60 7 1.73
Divorced 31 3.30 11 2.72
Remarried 4 0.43 0 0
Widowed 2 0.21 1 0.25
Children Yes 666 71.00 259 64.11
No 272 29.00 145 35.89

The Journal of E-working 54

 Manager: Project Management 103 10.98 20 4.95
Manager: Management 97 10.34 15 3.71
Manager: Business operations 51 5.44 11 2.72
Manager: Business enabling 116 12.37 19 4.70
Manager: Expert 186 19.83 47 11.63
Employee: Administrative
38 4.05 97 24.01
function
Employee: Storeroom function 0 0 3 0.74
Function
Employee: Study/computing
68 7.25 31 7.67
function
Employee: Secretarial
8 0.85 30 7.43
function
Employee: Sales function 41 4.37 17 4.21
Employee: Technical function 195 20.79 83 20.54
Employee: Commercial
35 3.73 31 7.67
Function

Table 6 presents the most interesting data, since it gives us very precise indications on where
people are working and to what extent they are working in the various places. Since there has
been much discussion on the idea that people are working on various sites, and some criticism of
the fact that they might be working too much, including, during work-related transportation, it is
interesting to be able to focus precisely on the time spent in various places. The table presents the
data for all 938 individuals belonging to groups 1 and 2, i.e., people provided with the technical
means to perform telework.

Table 6. Work time spent in different workplaces (% of workweek)

0% <5% 5-10% 10-20% 20- 30- 40-50% >50%
(workwe 30% 40%
ek)
Home, without specific
infrastructure 53.09 21.43 13.43 8.21 1.81 0.64 0.64 0.75

Home, with specific

infrastructure 37.63 14.71 17.48 14.71 8.10 3.84 1.39 2.13

Clients’ office 53.52 13.11 7.57 6.18 4.05 3.20 2.67 9.70

Office other than head 55.22 21.75 7.46 6.29 5.01 2.35 0.53 1.39
office

Satellite office
78.14 11.73 4.16 2.24 1.28 1.28 0.43 0.75

Hotel abroad
67.06 26.01 4.37 1.39 0.53 0.11 0.32 0.21

Hotel in Belgium
92.64 5.86 0.43 0.53 0.43 0.11 0 0

During work-related
travel 79.32 15.67 1.81 1.28 1.39 0.32 0 0.21

The Journal of E-working 55

Of course, without minimal specific infrastructure in the home, it is hardly conceivable to
perform telework there, and indeed, over 50% indicate they do no work at home. Where the
appropriate means or access to infrastructure is available, however, telework involves over 2/3 of
the workforce, since only 37% indicate that they do no work at home. Job-related work done at
home is important in these three categories: less than 5%, 5-10% and up to a significant 10-20 or
30 %! It is extremely rare that people spend more than this and very few spend more than 50%.
This may be an indication of a clear difference between mobile work and telework. While
telework programs usually lead to a high percentage of work at home (often 20%, sometimes
over 50%), this is clearly not the case with this mobile work program. Still, home remains the
place where most people do some work in this context, since it has the lowest percentage of
people doing 0% of work. Clients’ offices and offices other than the head office are the most
important places of work, after home, in the mobile work program.

Indeed, half of this population granted the technical means to perform telework does so at client’s
premises, and this applies across the entire range of relative frequencies. Half of this population
performs telework in an office other than the head office; nearly a quarter does so in a satellite
office and one-third in hotels (foreign and Belgian). While working during commuting is often
put forward as an invasion of work into private or personal time, it appears that only one-fifth
does some work during work-related travel.

Sequences of workplaces encountered by people performing mobile work

In addition to identifying the various settings for mobile work, one of the major features of this
research was to look at the sequences in which these settings occur, something, which, again to
our knowledge, had not been done before. Graph 1 presents the relative frequencies and ratios of
the different types of combinations in mobile work sequences (for individuals who belong to the
mobile population and who actually perform a least one form of mobile work). It is interesting to
note that 27% of individuals participate in sequences involving a single combination (such as
home working or work at the company office to which they report, followed by work at a client
premises). Approximately 75% of individuals perform mobile work sequences involving a
maximum of three such combinations or steps.

Graph 1. Number of steps in mobile work sequences

Nombre d'enchainements de mobile working

pratiqués

30

25

20

15 %

10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

The Journal of E-working 56

Table 7 indicates (for all 870 respondents in the teleworking population that actually perform
mobile work of any type, even partially) how frequently sequences are experienced and how
much the respondents would like to see the sequences increase or decrease. Home working (not
combined with other workplaces) is the sequence that the largest number of respondents would
like to see increased (14.37%), which means that these people would like to work exclusively in
the home. People would also like to see the “home–head office” and “home–head office–home”
sequences decrease (17.24% and 17.59%), which means that individuals would like to work at
home more often and not have to travel the company’s head office.

Table 7. Sequences experienced and sequences hoped-for

Sequence experienced Wish to see sequence
Sequence Yes No Increase Diminish
Freq % Freq % Freq % Freq %
Office A-Office B-Home 125 17.66 583 82.34 20 2.30 72 8.28
Home–Head office–Client A 164 23.16 544 76.84 30 3.45 64 7.36
Home–Head office 262 37.01 446 62.99 30 3.45 150 17.24
Home–Head office–Home 356 50.28 352 49.72 25 2.87 153 17.59
Home–Client A 149 21.05 559 78.95 44 5.06 15 1.72
Home–Client A–Home 218 30.79 490 69.21 72 8.28 31 3.56
Home–Client A–Head office 119 16.81 589 83.19 23 2.64 31 3.46
Home 136 19.21 572 80.79 125 14.37 14 1.61
Head office–Client A 58 8.19 650 91.81 9 1.03 17 1.95
Head office–Client A–Head
62 8.76 646 91.24 8 0.92 22 2.53
office
Head office–Client A–Home 82 11.58 626 88.42 25 2.87 14 1.61
Head office–Clientele–Head
35 4.94 673 95.06 2 0.23 14 1.61
office–Home
Head office–Home 151 21.33 557 78.67 10 1.15 64 7.36
Head office–Client A–Client
31 4.38 677 95.62 7 0.80 9 1.03
B–Head office
Office A–Head office–Office
23 3.25 685 96.75 3 0.34 7 0.80
B
Client A–Client B–Home 94 13.28 614 86.72 28 3.22 5 0.57
Clientele–Head office 37 5.23 671 94.77 6 0.69 9 1.03

Individuals not performing mobile work

Table 8 indicates (for all respondents in the teleworking population that do not perform any form,
even partial, of mobile work) how frequently they would like to see the different mobile work
sequences increase. The most hoped-for sequence is the home (not in combination with another
workplace). This is a significant finding since it reflects the level of interest in home working
among the respondents, many of whom actually commute between other workplaces.
Table 8. Wishes of respondents who do not perform mobile work
Desire to see sequence increase
Sequence
Freq %
Office A–Office B–Home 0 0
Home–Head office–Client A 4 0.85
Home–Head office 4 0.85
Home–Head office–Home 4 0.85
Home–Client A 5 1.06
Home–Client A–Home 7 1.48

The Journal of E-working 57

 Home–Client A–Head office 5 1.06
Home 12 2.54
Head office–Client A 4 0.85
Head office–Client A–Head office 1 0.21
Head office–Client A–Home 2 0.42
Head office–Clientele–Head office–
2 0.42
Home
Head office–Home 0 0
Head office–Client A–Client B–Head
1 0.21
office
Office A–Head office–Office B 1 0.21
Client A–Client B–Home 1 0.21
Clientele–Head office 0 0

Satisfaction and dissatisfaction

To our knowledge, no in-depth research exists on mobile work and, in particular, on individuals’
levels of satisfaction and dissatisfaction with this new form of employment. Graph 2 presents the
mobile population’s average scores with respect to the importance of, and satisfaction with, the
various benefits of mobile work (groups 1 and 2, i.e., teleworking collaborators and coaches,
respectively). Graph 2 also displays the corresponding SQI7 indicators. Reported averages are
displayed on the left side of the graph (scores 1 to 5), and SQI indicators are shown on the right.
It is of interest to note that the satisfaction index never dropped below 80. In some cases,
individuals’ level of satisfaction with the additional benefits of mobile work exceeds 100.

The major advantages mentioned by the respondents include less disruption by co-workers,
flexible work schedules, career enhancement and personal development, fewer trips and hours
lost in transit, improved work organisation, and better planning and scheduling of active time and
personal life8. It is surely interesting for firms to know that they can benefit from these
advantages as well, since these advantages can be used to attract and retain workers, something
which is extremely important in a context where there is a demographic decline in most
industrialised countries.

Graph 3 presents the average scores with respect to the importance of, and dissatisfaction with,
the various disadvantages related to mobile work, along with corresponding SQI scores. Once
again, the averages are displayed on the left side of the graph and the SQI scores are on the right.
It is of interest to note that the dissatisfaction index is always less than 100, which means that
collaborators are never totally dissatisfied. It is also of great interest to note that the points most
important to the respondents are those with which they are the least dissatisfied.

7
The Satisfaction Quality Index used by the company surveyed. SQI is assessed as follows: {[(Average satisfaction
– Average level) + (n-1)]/(n-1)}*100, where n is the number of categories in the proposed scale. In this case, n=5.
8
The data collected is of significance since it was gathered from a wide base of individuals (870).

The Journal of E-working 58

 Graph 2: Importance of, and satisfaction with, the various additional benefits of mobile work

Importance of, and satisfaction with, the various additional benefits of mobile
work
(collaborators and coaches)

5 200
4.5 180
4 160
3.5 140
3 120 Importance Moyenne
2.5 100 Satisfaction Moyenne
2 80 SQI
1.5 60
1 40
0.5 20
0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Importance Moyenne – Average Importance // Satisfaction Moyenne – Average Satisfaction

1 Opportunity to integrate stops for personal matters 7 New quality of life 13 Enhancement of teamwork 19 Better organisation of work time
into my work travel
2 New lifestyle 8 Reduced professional expenses 14 Personal development 20 Professional effectiveness
3 Less disruptions by co-workers 9 Flexible work schedules 15 Career enhancement 21 Less time lost in transit
4 Meet previously unknown co-workers 10 More leisure time 16 Less work-related trips 22 Reduced stress

5 New communication skills with co-workers 11 Strengthened social mind, sense of 17 More time for my friends 23 Better planning and scheduling of work
community time and personal life
6 A feeling that all social roles are better carried out 12 More open to co-workers’ difficulties 18 Better scheduling of daily work travel 24 More time for my family

The Journal of E-working 59

Graph 3. Dissatisfaction with various aspects of mobile work

Level of dissatisfaction for various aspects of mobile working (mobile

collaborators and coaches )

5 200

4,5 180

4 160

3,5 140

3 120
A Importance Moyenne
2,5 100 Insatisfaction Moyenne
SQI
2 80

1,5 60

1 40

0,5 20

0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

1 Cost involved in setting up a home office 6 More pressure 11 More work-related travel

2 New work expenses 7 Loss of company spirit 12 Barrier to teamwork

3 Need to move in order to have a home office 8 Greater fatigue at the end of the day 13 Social isolation

4 Lack of visibility with the manager 9 Only having oneself to solve work- 14 Blurring of one’s work life and family life
related problems

5 More work 10 Conflict with the manager 15 Loss of team spirit

The Journal of E-working 60

The primary sources of dissatisfaction reported by the respondents are as follows: loss of team
spirit, social isolation, blurring of work life and family life, increased workload and pressure,
and lack of exposure to management. These echo some findings from other research,
especially with respect to isolation, although these findings were on telework (Cefrio, 2001),
and not mobile work specifically, as is the case for most research. However, several elements
were not the subject of quantified observations in previous research, namely loss of team
spirit, having more work and pressure, and the absence of visibility with the manager; it is
interesting to see them evaluated precisely here. The blurring of work life and family life was
raised by Felstead and Jewson (2000) as a potentially significant problem, especially for
women, but this issue did not emerge as a major factor in other surveys (Cefrio, 2001). The
downsizing and technological developments of recent years may partly account for this
feeling of having more work and pressure, and the information technology sector may be
among those in which the pace of work has picked up.

The desire to do mobile work

Since it is often hypothesised that individuals would appreciate mobile work, and some firms
have shown interest inasmuch as they can reap the benefits (as indicated above, some
productivity benefits as well as attraction retention benefits can be reaped), it is important to
determine whether or not individuals do, in fact, appreciate mobile work or not before putting
it forward as a solution to many problems, amongst which lack of time, especially for family
and personal activities, also reduction in traffic congestion and the like. The survey looked at
the level of interest in mobile work among respondents who are not currently involved in
mobile work. Of the 404 individuals in groups 2 and 3 (i.e., individuals lacking the technical
means to perform telework), the vast majority, 94.8% (or 383 persons), wishes to perform at
least one form of mobile work; only 21 individuals expressed no interest, which clearly
speaks volumes of the popularity of this format of work organisation.

Our research addressed the issue of those who wanted to practice mobile work. It was
observed that for both men and women presently, over 95% express the wish to carry out
mobile work. It is of interest to note that proportions do not differ by gender. Indeed, the
proportion of individuals wishing to perform telework exceeds 90% for both genders.

Graph 4 presents, for each age group, the frequencies and ratios expressing the desire to
perform mobile work. Percentages are higher for individuals in the 25-34 and 35-44 age
groups. Obviously, even if there are some drawbacks related to mobile work, there is a strong
majority of individuals still very interested in this work practice, and somehow, these
categories coincide with the ages where people usually have more family demands. This
should therefore be looked into in terms of human resource management strategies, although
there is a wide interest in all groups.

It was also interesting to examine the level of interest in mobile work within various
categories of collaborators. Table 9 presents, for each function, the participants’ aspiration to
do mobile work. Regardless of function, the proportion of individuals who would accept to
perform mobile work is still very high. It is only amongst project managers that there appears
to be a significant percentage (20%) of individuals who are less interested. This confirms the
results of other researchers who observed that intermediate level managers often resist having
their employees do telework; this apparently holds as well for mobile work, which also
implies some distance (Tremblay and Genin, 2007).

The Journal of E-working 61

Graph 4. Wish to practice mobile work, by age

Acceptance of mobile work

100%

90%

80%

70%
Percentage

60%
Non
50%
Oui
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
<25 25-34 35-44 45-54 >54
Age

Table 9. Interest for mobile work, by professional category

Wish to practice mobile work
Function Yes No
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
Manager: Project management 16 80.00 4 20.00
Manager: Management 14 93.33 1 6.67
Manager: Business operations 11 100.00 0 0.00
Manager: Business enabling 19 100.00 0 0.00
Manager: Expert 46 97.87 1 2.13
Employee: admin. function 92 94.85 5 5.15
Employee: storeroom function 3 100.00 0 0.00
Employee: study/computing 28 90.32 3 9.68
Employee: secretarial function 28 93.33 2 6.67
Employee: sales function 17 100.00 0 0.00
Employee: technical function 78 93.98 5 6.02
Employee: commercial function 31 100.00 0 0.00

5. Conclusion

This study, conducted in a large organisation, describes the diversity of forms of mobile work,
a work organisation often presents as the way forward, and it looks at how this form of work
is performed in customised and shifting sequences adapted to both individual needs and duty,
including family and/or personal circumstances9. It challenges the traditional monolithic
vision of telework (as work at home) and confirms the diversity of forms of remote work that

9
On the subject of links between telework, home working and personal obligations, see Tremblay et al.
(2007,2006a,b,c).

The Journal of E-working 62

exist in reality. The research uncovered a certain number of features, or new forms, of
telework. It documents the diversity of settings for telework (here, referred to as mobile work)
precisely to illustrate the existing diversity in both work mobility and work settings.

It also confirms the desire of many workers, including among non-mobile workers, for
flexibility through mobile work with a preference for “home teleworking”. Indeed, working
from home is seen by many as a format providing an element of flexibility, and sequences of
work, including time, for working at home are sought by a majority of respondents. On the
contrary, there is little demand for sequences involving work at the company’s head office.
This could surely orient the work organisation policies of many firms, especially those
confronted with labour shortages and looking for ways to attract and retain workers.

Indeed, the research highlights the advantages of mobile work, and also shows that home is
the place people most want to see increase in the various sequences they do in the context of
mobile work. The major advantages mentioned by the respondents, and which can easily
bring productivity advantages to firms, include less disruption by co-workers, flexible work
schedules, fewer trips and hours lost in transit, improved work organisation, and better
planning and scheduling of work, time and personal life. They also include career
enhancement and personal development, which can be extremely important in a context where
firms are competing for the best workers. Indeed, it is important for firms to know that they
can benefit from these advantages, since they can be used to attract and retain workers, a
matter of importance in the context of a demographic decline in most industrialised countries.

The research illustrates the increasing diversity of forms or arrangements of mobile work and
gives us a deeper understanding of what this new form of telework really means, illustrating
the diversity of work settings.

In the wake of individuals’ satisfaction with, and interest in, the various forms of mobile
work, it would surely be useful for firms to consider developing mobile work, but particularly
taking into account the preference for work from home, and also the advantages and
disadvantages that workers see in these arrangements. Also, some specific determinants
govern the practice of mobile work, namely the work environment in general, provision of the
necessary tools by the company and the opportunities afforded to the various professional
categories. Finally, the technical means to carry out telework vary according to the nature of
work performed, and it is clear that while some professional categories can easily adapt to
working remotely, others must remain on-site to perform their duties (storeroom, reception,
clerical services, etc.).

One limitation of the research may lie in the fact that it was conducted within a single
organisation. It is nevertheless useful to document the diversity of practices within a single
large organisation, especially since access to such organisations is often difficult to secure for
in-depth surveys on work conditions and especially telework. Also, given the important
number of respondents and the diversity of professional categories included here, this partly
compensates the fact that a single organisation is studied. Further research should, of course,
be conducted into the diversity of telework and mobile work formats, in a larger set of work
settings. This research, nevertheless, lays the groundwork for future in-depth inquiries into the
sequences of work settings encountered, the length of time spent in various settings, and the
interest of different professional categories for potential work settings or feasible sequences.
This analysis of the sequences of work is clearly one of the most innovative dimensions of

The Journal of E-working 63

this research, one which may be applied in future research on mobile work and telework as
well.

Finally, it is clear that firms, wishing to benefit from new forms of work organisation to gain
a competitive edge, can surely gain from mobile work. Indeed, the organisation studied was
of the view that this program was an excellent way to attract and retain workers. So, this
strategy may, eventually, be reproduced by others in a not so distant future.

References
Baines, S. (2002). New Technologies and Old Ways of Working in the Home of the Self-
Employed Teleworker. New Technology, Work and Employment, 17,2, 89-101.

Baines, S. and U. Gelder (2003). What is Family Friendly about the Workplace in the Home?
New Technology, Work and Employment, 18,3, 223-234.

Bangemann, Martin (1994). Europe and the Global Information Society. Recommendation to
the European Council. Brussels, EEC.

Benchimol, Guy (1994). L’entreprise délocalisée. Paris, Éditions Hermès.

CEFRIO (2001). Le télétravail. Montreal: IQ éditeur.

Chapman, A.J., et al. (1995). “The Organisational Implications of Teleworking.”

International Review of Industrial and Organisational Psychology, 10: 229-248.

Christensen, K.E. (1987). “Impacts of Computer-Mediated Home Based Work on Women

and Their Families.” Office, Technology and People, 3: 211-230.

Dimitrova, D. (2003). Controlling Teleworkers: Supervision and Flexibility Revisited, New

Technology, Work and Employment, 18,3, 181-195.

Felstead, A., and N. Jewson (2000). In Home, at Work. Towards an Understanding of

Homeworking. London, Routledge. 196 p.

Haddon L.and M. Brynin (2005). The character of teleworkers and the characteristics of
teleworkers. New Technology, Work and Employment, 20,1, 34-46.

Hafer, M. (1992). Telecommuting: An Alternate Route to Work, Step by Step Guide.

Washington: Washington State Energy Office.

Hardill, I. and A. Green (2003). Remote Working – Altering the Spatial Contours of Work
and Home in the New Economy. New Technology, Work and Employment, 18,3, 212-222.

Huws, U., B.K. Werner and S. Robinson (1990). Telework: Towards the Elusive Office.
London: John Wiley & Sons, collection “Information Systems Series.” 266 p.

Institute for Employment Studies (2001). eWork in Europe; the Emergence 18 Country
Employer Survey. Brighton. 84 p.

The Journal of E-working 64

Kurkland, Nancy B., and Diane. E. Bailey (1999). “Telework: The Advantage and Challenge
of Working Here, There, Anywhere, and Anytime.” Organisational Dynamics, Fall, pp. 53-
68.

Olson, M.H. (1989). “Work at home for computer professionals: Current attitudes and
futures prospects.” ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, 7: 317-338.

Pichault, F. and S. Grosjean (1998). Du télétravail au travail à distance. Namur: Fonds

national de la recherche collective. 146 p.

Pratt, J. (1984), “Home Teleworking: A study of its pioneers.” Technological Forecasting and
Social Change, 25: 1-14.
Sullivan, C. (2003). What,s in a Name ? Definitions and Conceptualisations of Teleworking
and Homeworking, New Technology, Work and Employment, 18,3,158-165.

Taskin, L., & Vendramin, P. (2004). Le télétravail, une vague silencieuse. Les enjeux d’une
nouvelle flexibilité. PUL, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.

Thomsin, Laurence et Diane-Gabrielle Tremblay (2006) Le « mobile working » : De

nouvelles perspectives sur les lieux et les formes du télétravail. Interventions économiques.
No 34. www.teluq.uqam.ca/interventionseconomiques

Tremblay, D.-G. (2001). Télétravail: concilier performance et qualité de vie. Rapport de

recherche Cefrio. 84 p.

Tremblay, D.-G. (2002). “Balancing Work and Family with Telework? Organisational Issues
and Challenges for Women and Managers.” Women in Management. Manchester: MCB
Press. Volume 17, Issue 3/4, pp. 157-170.

Tremblay, Diane-Gabrielle (2003). “Telework: A New Mode of Gendered Segmentation?

Results from a study in Canada.” Canadian Journal of Communication. Vol. 28, No. 4, pp.
461-478.

Tremblay, D.-G. (2003a). Le télétravail; ses impacts sur l’organisation du travail des femmes
et la conciliation emploi-famille. Research note by the Canada Research Chair on the Socio-
Organisational Challenges of the Knowledge Economy. No. 2003-10. Available at:
http://www.teluq.uquebec.ca/chaireecosavoir/

Tremblay, D. -G. (2004). Conciliation emploi-famille et temps sociaux. Toulouse. Éditions

Octares and Presses de l’université du Québec.

Tremblay, D.-G. (2006). Le télétravail. Encyclopédie Vuibert de l’informatique. Paris:

Vuibert.

Tremblay, Diane-Gabrielle and Émilie Genin (2007). The demand for telework of IT self-
employed workers. TheJournal of E-working. Vol. 1. No 2. Dec. 2007. pp. 98-115.
http://www.merlien.org/oj/index.php/JOE/article/viewFile/20/7.

The Journal of E-working 65

 Tremblay, Diane-Gabrielle , Catherine Chevrier and Martine Di Loreto (2007). “Le travail
autonome: une meilleure conciliation entre vie personnelle et vie professionnelle…ou une
plus grande interpénétration des temps sociaux ?” Loisir et société/Leisure and Society, vol.
29 no 1. pp.191-214. .

Tremblay, D. -G., Renaud Paquet and Elmustapha Najem (2006a). “Telework: a way to
balance work and family or an increase in work-family conflict?” Canadian Journal of
Communication. Vol. 31, No. 2. October 2006.

Tremblay, D. -G., Elmustapha Najem and Renaud Paquet (2006b). “Articulation emploi-
famille et temps de travail: De quelles mesures disposent les travailleurs canadiens et à quoi
aspirent-ils?” Enfance, Famille et Génération, No 4. http://www.erudit.org/revue/efg/

Tremblay, Diane-Gabrielle, Catherine Chevrier and Martine Di Loreto (2006c). “Le

télétravail à domicile: Meilleure conciliation emploi-famille ou source d’envahissement de la
vie privée ?” Interventions économiques, No. 34. www.teluq.uqam.ca/chaireecosavoir

Vandercammen, Marc (1994). Télétravail. Brussels, Institut wallon d’études de recherches et

de formation.

License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License, unless explicitly stated
otherwise within the posted content. The Journal of E-working applies the Creative Commons
Attribution License (CCAL) to all works we publish. Under the CCAL, authors retain
ownership of the copyright for their articles, but allow anyone to download, reuse, reprint,
modify, distribute, and/or copy their works so long the original authors and source are cited.
No permission is required from authors or the publishers.

The Journal of E-working 66

View publication stats