Work From Home Adjustment in The US and Europe The Role of Psychological Climate For Face Time and Perceived Availability Expectations

The International Journal of Human Resource
Management
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rijh20
Work-from-home adjustment in the US and

Europe: the role of psychological climate for face
time and perceived availability expectations
Marie-Colombe Afota, Yanick Provost Savard, Ariane Ollier-Malaterre &

Emmanuelle Léon
To cite this article: Marie-Colombe Afota, Yanick Provost Savard, Ariane Ollier-Malaterre
& Emmanuelle Léon (2022): Work-from-home adjustment in the US and Europe: the role of
psychological climate for face time and perceived availability expectations, The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, DOI: 10.1080/09585192.2022.2090269
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2022.2090269
Published online: 07 Jul 2022.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 211
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rijh20
The International Journal of Human Resource Management
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2022.2090269
Work-from-home adjustment in the US and Europe:

the role of psychological climate for face time and
perceived availability expectations
Marie-Colombe Afotaa, Yanick Provost Savardb, Ariane
Ollier-Malaterrec and Emmanuelle Léond
a
School of Industrial Relations (ÉRI), Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada;
b
Department of Psychology, Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM), Montréal, Québec, Canada;
c
Organisation and Human Resources Department, School of Management (ESG), Université du
Québec à Montréal (UQAM), Montréal, Québec, Canada; dDepartment of Management, ESCP
Business School, Paris, France
ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The COVID-19 pandemic has precipitated a massive adoption COVID-19; work-from-
of high-intensity work-from-home (WFH), a form of work home adjustment;
organization that is expected to persist. Yet, little is known remote work;
psychological climate for
about the predictors and mechanisms underlying employees’ face time; cross-national
successful adjustment to high-intensity WFH. Drawing on research
signaling theory, we identify psychological climate for face
time (i.e., an employee’s perception that their organization
values physical presence in the office) as an antecedent of
WFH adjustment. We argue that when WFH employees per-
ceive that their organization encourages face time, they may
view availability as a signal of their dedication to work,
replacing visibility. Consequently, they feel expected to be
extensively available (e.g., check emails outside of regular
working hours). In turn, these perceived expectations predict
lower adjustment to WFH. We further explore whether this
process differs in the US and two European countries, France
and Spain, given different employment protection and right
to disconnect legislations, and different meanings attached
to work ethics. In a two-wave study on a sample of 532
full-time WFH employees, structural equation modeling anal-
yses show that perceptions of availability expectations medi-
ate the negative relationship between psychological climate
for face time and WFH adjustment, and that this process is
accentuated in the US.
Along with broad impacts on individuals’ lives, the COVID-19 pandemic

has precipitated a sudden and widespread shift to high-intensity
work-from-home (WFH), a form of remote work in which employees
work from home full-time or at least three days per week (Gajendran
CONTACT Marie-Colombe Afota marie-colombe.afota@umontreal.ca School of Industrial Relations

(ÉRI), Université de Montréal, 3150, rue Jean-Brillant, Montréal, Québec H3T 1N8, Canada.
© 2022 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 M.-C. AFOTA ET AL.
& Harrison, 2007). Understanding the causes of and mechanisms under-

lying employees’ successful adjustment to high-intensity WFH is critical
to help organizations and HR practitioners design sustainable WFH
because a significant expansion of this and other forms of remote work
is expected to be a legacy of the pandemic (Kniffin, Narayanan, Anseel,
et al., 2021; Ozimek, 2020).
Unfortunately, the pre-pandemic literature on remote workers has
provided few robust conclusions about the predictors of employees’
successful adjustment to high-intensity WFH. Estimates suggest that less
than 3% of the American and European workforce were working remotely
more than half of the week before the COVID-19 pandemic (Eurofound,
2017; Wang et al., 2021). Consequently, most research on remote work
(a) has been conducted in contexts in which remote work was infre-
quent, and (b) has conflated high-intensity and occasional WFH (Golden
& Eddleston, 2020; Wang et al., 2021). Furthermore, research has pre-
dominantly focused on WFH outcomes (Beauregard et al., 2019), devot-
ing much less attention to the causes and mechanisms leading to
employees’ successful adjustment to high-intensity WFH.
Central to high-intensity WFH is the substantial loss of physical
presence in the workplace (Sewell & Taskin, 2015). The literature on
employee visibility at work indicates that being physically visible to one’s
supervisors and peers in the office provides multiple benefits, such as
faster advancement, higher pay increases, and better performance eval-
uations (Elsbach et al., 2010; Elsbach & Cable, 2012; McDonald et al.,
2008). A dominant interpretation of these findings is that supervisors
typically use employees’ physical presence in the office, i.e., face time,
as a proxy for their commitment and productivity (Feldman et al., 2020).
This “seeing is believing” way to assess performance reflects a lack of
trust in employees’ willingness to take responsibility for their work and
may threaten the success of telework programs (Beauregard et al., 2019).
Consistent with this idea, the literature on remote work generally shows
that high-intensity (vs. low-intensity) remote work is associated with
less positive work and career outcomes (Allen et al., 2015; Golden &
Eddleston, 2020). Taken together, these findings suggest that a lack of
visibility in the workplace exposes high-intensity remote workers to
unique challenges that may hamper their adjustment to the WFH
situation.
An employee’s perceptions of their workplace climate, hereafter referred
to as ‘psychological climate’, may help them evaluate to what extent
supervisors assess subordinates’ performance by observing their physical
presence. Psychological climate is an individual level construct that
captures an employee’s interpretation of the practices, processes, and
policies that prevail in their work environment (James et al., 2008;
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 3
Parker et al., 2003). The meaning employees attach to these ‘tangibles’
of the work environment (Schneider et al., 2013, p. 381) provide them
with behavioral expectations guidelines. Prior research on various types
of adjustment to change in the workplace (e.g., organizational change;
expatriation) found that climate perceptions are crucial determinants of
employees’ successful adaptation to new working conditions (Davies
et al., 2019; Eby et al., 2000). That is because cues about appropriate
behavior provided by the work context (i.e., climate perceptions) help
to reduce the uncertainty associated with unfamiliar situations (Salancik
& Pfeffer, 1978). Recent evidence suggests that the work environment
is indeed a critical factor that contributes to individual WFH outcomes
(Adamovic et al., 2021; Golden & Eddleston, 2020).
The above discussion calls for a deeper examination of how employees’
perceptions of the importance placed on face time in their workplace
influence their adjustment to high-intensity WFH. We introduce the
concept of psychological climate for face time, which we define as indi-
vidual employees’ perception that their workplace encourages and rewards
physical presence, and examine its effect on employees’ adjustment to
mandatory WFH in the US and two European countries, France and
Spain. We define WFH adjustment as the extent to which employees
adapt to the significant changes in their work conditions triggered by
their new high-intensity WFH situation (Davies et al., 2019; Raghuram
et al., 2001). Previous research on newcomers, expatriates, and employees
experiencing change has suggested that adjustment comprises affective,
behavioral and cognitive components (Piderit, 2000; Saks & Ashforth,
2000; Ward et al., 2001). We thus conceptualize WFH adjustment as a
multidimensional construct comprised of WFH enjoyment (i.e., pleasur-
able affective state), WFH productivity (i.e., work output), and WFH
evaluation (i.e., cognitive assessment of WFH).
We also posit that perceived availability expectations mediate the
relationship between psychological climate for face time and WFH
adjustment. Indeed, employees who perceive the psychological climate
of their workplace as encouraging face time recognize that, in regular
times, they are expected to use face time to signal their dedication and
productivity. Yet, high-intensity WFH employees have limited to no
opportunities to display physical presence in the office. Drawing on
signaling theory (Spence, 1973), we argue that they will feel compelled
to use an alternative signal. Extended availability (i.e., being accessible
by email, text messages, phone, or conference call at any time; Dettmers,
Vahle-Hinz, et al., 2016) has the qualities required of an effective sub-
stitute signal: it is observable by managers and costly for employees,
thus conveying their dedication (Cristea & Leonardi, 2019). In turn,
employees feeling the pressure to be extensively available will display
poorer WFH adjustment. Qualitative accounts have documented that

remote workers or geographically dispersed employees often use extended
availability as material evidence that they are working (Cristea &
Leonardi, 2019; Fonner & Roloff, 2012). Extended availability has been
identified as a symptom of the “always on” culture (Dettmers, Vahle-Hinz,
et al., 2016) and perceived availability expectations have been associated
with deleterious outcomes for employees such as increased strain and
work–life conflicts (e.g., Becker et al., 2019; Belkin et al., 2020; Dettmers,
2017; Dettmers, Bamberg, et al., 2016; Dettmers, Vahle-Hinz, et al.,
2016). Yet, we know little about the organizational antecedents of per-
ceived availability expectations (Becker et al., 2021) and research on
their consequences have been mostly limited to pre-pandemic traditional
physical work settings.
Lastly, WFH unfolds in national contexts that exhibit structural and
cultural differences (Ollier-Malaterre & Foucreault, 2017). We examine
the role of country context by contrasting the US on the one hand and
two European countries on the other hand, France and Spain, which
differ both regarding legislation on employment protection and right to
disconnect (OECD, 2020) and the moral implications of work ethics
(D’Iribarne, 1989). We tested our hypotheses using a two-wave design
among employees in a large financial institution operating in the US,
France, and Spain.
This study contributes to the remote work literature by identifying
psychological climate for face time as an antecedent of employees’ adjust-
ment to high-intensity WFH and perceived availability expectations as
a mediating mechanism. Because HR practices contribute to shaping
climate perceptions (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004), practitioners can fruitfully
leverage these findings to design sustainable WFH programs. At a time
when the expansion of WFH is a global phenomenon, our study also
suggests that the predictors of WFH adjustment may differ according
to national specificities, a finding that opens up areas for future
cross-national research.
Theoretical background
Psychological climate for face time and perceived availability expectations
Individuals adapt to their social context by probing their environment
in search of guidelines on how to behave appropriately (Salancik &
Pfeffer, 1978). Thus, employees’ adjustment to their situation can be
understood by examining the kinds of behaviors that are encouraged
and rewarded in their work environment (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). It
follows that individual work climate perceptions can shed light on
employees’ responses to changes in their work situation.
In organizational settings, climate refers to the perceptions and inter-

pretations of the processes, rules, procedures and expected and rewarded
behaviors specific to a particular work environment (Schneider et al.,
2013). The literature on climate distinguishes between shared and indi-
vidual construal of the work environment, referred to as organizational
climate and psychological climate, respectively (e.g., Parker et al., 2003).
Researchers typically aggregate individual climate perceptions (i.e., psy-
chological climate) to compute a measure of organizational climate. Yet,
individual climate perceptions may vary widely, denoting the absence
of an organizational climate (i.e., shared perceptions) (Kessler, 2019).
This is because climate perceptions are derived from the interaction of
individual characteristics (e.g., personal values or expectations) and
objective attributes of the work environment (Kessler, 2019).
Meta-analytical findings suggest that psychological climate is a more
proximal predictor of employee outcomes (Parker et al., 2003) because
individual cognitions mediate the effect of objective work characteristics
on individual outcomes (Parker et al., 2003). The present study, which
examines individual-level responses to mandatory WFH, follows recom-
mendations about the appropriateness of aggregation of individual-level
data to higher levels (e.g., Glick, 1985; Klein & Kozlowski, 2000) and
focuses on psychological climate rather than organizational climate.
Psychological climate focuses on numerous characteristics of the work
environment (Schneider, 2000), of which employees simultaneously per-
ceive and interpret various features (Kuenzi & Schminke, 2009). Multiple
psychological climates thus coexist within a single work context at a
given time, such as psychological climates for service (Schneider &
Bowen, 1985), for change (Tierney, 1999), or for safety (Neal et al.,
2000). In this study, the outcome of interest, WFH adjustment, is the
extent to which employees adapt to a new work context characterized
by a shift from physical presence on the work premises to working from
home. Thus, representations of the policies, practices and expected and
rewarded behaviors that pertain to physical presence in the workplace
are likely to be of particular significance.
We propose the term psychological climate for face time to refer to
the extent to which an employee perceives that their workplace encour-
ages and rewards physical presence on site. Factors that shape a psy-
chological climate for face time are, for example, perceptions that either
financial or non-financial rewards, such as recognition and praise from
the organization or extended responsibilities are at least partly based on
the extent to which one is physically visible to coworkers and managers
(e.g., at their desk, in a meeting). Therefore, psychological climate for
face time reflects one’s subjective perception that being physically visible
in the office is an essential element of success in the organization
(Shockley & Allen, 2010). In such a context characterized by managers’

lack of trust towards workers and implicit beliefs that employees, if not
visible and monitored, will seek to minimize their work efforts (Beauregard
et al., 2019), employees are aware that doing the work is not enough,
they need to be seen working. Qualitative accounts suggest that psycho-
logical climate for face time is prevalent in today’s organizations (Elsbach
et al., 2010; Elsbach & Cable, 2012; Feldman et al., 2020; Munck, 2001).
Indeed, visibility is used as a proxy for critical but less easily observable
indicators of employees’ commitment and performance (Cristea &
Leonardi, 2019; Feldman et al., 2020) and provides multiple benefits,
namely faster advancement, higher pay increases, and better performance
evaluations (Feldman et al., 2020; McDonald et al., 2008).
We draw on signaling theory (Connelly et al., 2011; Spence, 1973) to
propose that employees in high-intensity WFH will respond to their
perception that their workplace encourages and rewards physical presence
on site by feeling pressured to signal their commitment and hard work
in a different way, through extended availability: they may feel expected
to answer the phone and take video conference calls outside of regular
working hours, as well as frequently check emails and text messages.
Signaling theory focuses on the exchange of information between indi-
viduals or organizational parties about unobservable characteristics that
cannot be readily communicated. When one party wants to communicate
such information to another party, they will resort to observable and
often costly signals. Research on signaling theory has mostly focused on
signals sent by organizations to outsiders (e.g., investors, potential appli-
cants; see Connelly et al., 2011 for an extensive review). Yet, the theory
is deemed equally valid at the individual level (Connelly et al., 2011).
In this research, we follow the example of others (e.g., Cristea & Leonardi,
2019; Hochwarter et al., 2007; Ryan et al., 2000) and focus on employees’
use of signals. Employees who view their workplace as encouraging,
expecting, and rewarding visibility (i.e., psychological climate for face
time) feel expected to use visibility (i.e., the observable signal) to com-
municate their productivity and dedication (i.e., the less easily observable
information) to their manager (i.e., the receiver of the information;
Feldman et al., 2020; Munck, 2001). High-intensity WFH impedes the
physical visibility signal. Yet, it does not free employees from an unspo-
ken expectation to communicate their commitment and productivity.
Thus, we expect that high-intensity WFH employees will still feel expected
to demonstrate their dedication and hard work by using another signal.
To be effective and credible, signals must be both observable and
costly to the sender (Connelly et al., 2011). One observable and costly
signal when in remote work is extended availability. While direct obser-
vation of employees at work is no longer feasible, managers may still
observe employees’ constant availability. Managers may in fact check

remote workers’ availability by a variety of means, such as observing the
speed with which emails sent outside of regular work hours receive an
answer, checking employees’ status on instant messaging applications and
collaborative tools (for instance, someone who is active online will have
a green dot displayed next to their name on Teams and on Messenger),
or checking indicators that a message has been read (e.g., the mention
‘read’ on a text message, the ‘check’ sign on WhatsApp). In the context
of geographically distributed teams, remote employees use communica-
tions tools strategically to prove they are working as they are aware that
their managers appraise their online availability, and managers interpret
“day or night” availability as evidence of dedication and hard work
(Cristea & Leonardi, 2019, p.562). Moreover, several qualitative studies
suggest that employees who cannot use face time to signal their com-
mitment strive to signal availability instead (Beauregard et al., 2019;
Cristea & Leonardi, 2019; Sewell & Taskin, 2015). Therefore, we expect
that the more employees evaluate psychological climate as valuing face
time, the higher they will perceive availability expectations to be.
Hypothesis 1 (H1). Psychological climate for face time is positively associated with
perceived availability expectations.
Perceived availability expectations and WFH adjustment
Below, we examine WFH adjustment as a consequence of perceived

availability expectations. We have defined WFH adjustment as the extent
to which employees adapt to their new WFH situation. Since the con-
struct of adjustment comprises various facets (Piderit, 2000; Raghuram
et al., 2001; Saks & Ashforth, 2000; Ward et al., 2001), we suggest that
WFH adjustment is composed of affective, behavioral and cognitive
dimensions, which we term WFH enjoyment, productivity, and evalua-
tion, respectively.
Since roughly a decade, research began to investigate how information
and communication technologies (ICT) had contributed to create an ‘always
on’ workplace characterized by extended availability (Becker et al., 2021).
This nascent literature has been somewhat fragmented (Hu et al., 2021).
One stream of research has focused on the deleterious impact of ICT
work-related overuse (e.g., Derks et al., 2016; Ferguson et al., 2016) on
employees’ burnout and work–life conflict. A second stream has examined
the consequences of telepressure, defined as an urge to respond to emails
as quickly as possible (Barber & Santuzzi, 2015), and found similar negative
effects on employees’ work–life balance, ability to detach from work and
well-being (e.g., Barber & Santuzzi, 2015; Hu et al., 2019; Santuzzi &
Barber, 2018). Taken together, these research efforts have established that
constant connectivity negatively affects employees’ well-being and work–life
balance. Closer to our focus on availability expectations, works on extended
availability requirements (Dettmers, 2017; Dettmers, Bamberg, et al., 2016;
Dettmers, Vahle-Hinz, et al., 2016) perceived expectations for email mon-
itoring (Becker et al., 2021; Belkin et al., 2020) and online presenteeism
(Adisa et al., 2021) have shown that perceived expectations or requirements
act as a job stressor even if employees do not conform to these pressures.
Yet, this nascent stream has not examined the specific situation of
high-intensity remote workers and has been restricted to a limited set of
outcomes, mostly relating to employees’ well-being and work–life balance.
We argue that availability expectations will negatively affect WFH
adjustment. First, the perception that one must be more accessible and
the corollary anticipation that work may intrude on personal time at
any moment entail a loss of control over one’s time (Dettmers, Bamberg,
et al., 2016). Since control over our behaviors and environment is a
critical facilitator of psychological adjustment (Maddux & Lewis, 1995),
availability expectations are likely to hamper both WFH enjoyment and
WFH evaluation. Moreover, employees who perceive that they are
expected to be available over extended hours and weekends make per-
sonal life sacrifices because they prioritize work over family and other
personal commitments (Cristea & Leonardi, 2019). With the rise of
video conferences and other technologies opening a window on remote
workers’ home offices (Kniffin, Narayanan, Anseel, et al., 2021), such
as telepresence robots (Muratbekova-Touron & Leon, 2021), some remote
workers are also giving up on keeping their home lifestyle to themselves.
The resulting work–family tensions and the violation of employees’
work–family boundaries (Kossek et al., 2012) are likely to diminish their
enjoyment of WFH and lead them to evaluate it negatively.
Second, coping with availability expectations entails devoting time
and effort to managing impressions (Leary & Kowalski, 1990). Signaling
availability is a form of impression management in that it aims to con-
trol the impressions of supervisors and peers so that they perceive the
employee as working hard and truly committed to work (Cristea &
Leonardi, 2019). For example, employees may use technologies strate-
gically (e.g., constantly appear online on instant messaging systems) to
signal their availability. Devoting time and effort to manage impressions
diverts cognitive and emotional resources from the work at hand (Vohs
et al., 2005). Therefore, WFH employees who manage impressions in
addition to performing their work because they perceive high availability
expectations, may report lower WFH productivity than those who do
not perceive such expectations and therefore allocate a greater share of
their time and effort to work tasks. Thus, we expect a negative
relationship between perceived availability expectations and WFH adjust-

ment and an indirect negative relationship between psychological climate
for face time and WFH adjustment.
Hypothesis 2 (H2). Perceived availability expectations are negatively related to
WFH adjustment.
Hypothesis 3 (H3). Perceived availability expectations mediate the negative rela-
tionship between psychological climate for face time and WFH adjustment.
The role of country context
Many contextual factors at the country level may affect the ways in which
employees perceive work and use working hours and availability to signal
their commitment (Farndale et al., 2017; Ollier-Malaterre et al., 2013).
These factors can be classified into two categories: structural, i.e., the
rules and constraints produced by legal, economic and social structure,
and cultural, i.e., the values, assumptions and beliefs shared by individuals
with a common historical background (Ollier-Malaterre & Foucreault,
2017). To examine how country context may impact WFH adjustment,
we contrast the US with Catholic European countries (e.g., Spain, France),
because they differ both structurally and culturally.
First, employment protection legislation varies greatly across OECD
countries, with the US imposing the fewest restrictions on lay-offs (OECD,
2020). Most European countries offer stronger protection to employees
requiring employers to provide an objective justification for termination,
with France and Spain having similarly strict rules regarding employment
termination (Berglund & Furåker, 2016; OECD, 2020). Regarding avail-
ability expectations, France has limited employees’ working time to a 35-h
week (effective since 2002) and Spain requires all companies to track
working hours and comply with overtime limitations, whereas there is
no federal mandate on working hours in the US (OECD, 2021). Both
France and Spain have taken steps to ensure employees’ right to discon-
nect from work outside of their working hours, in 2017 and 2018, respec-
tively, whereas such legislation is lacking in the US. The relationships we
have hypothesized thus far may unfold differently in the US vs. France
and Spain as a result, because employment protection and right to dis-
connect legislation may buffer employees from lay-offs associated with a
lack of visibility. Employees in France and Spain may therefore feel less
need to replace face time with extended availability as a substitute signal
of commitment to work.
Second, the US has a particularly strong Protestant heritage that con-
trasts with Catholic Europe. Uhlmann and Sanchez-Burks (2014) argued
that the Protestant work ethic is widely shared in the US, including by
non-Protestant individuals, due to implicit social cognition. In the US,
work takes on a moral and almost religious value (Bunderson & Thompson,
2009), whereas Catholic European countries such as France and Spain
tend to view work, and the entire economic sphere, as separate and
sometimes even divergent from morality (D’Iribarne, 1989). These different
views on the meaning attached to work ethics may further impact the
relationship between psychological climate for face time and availability
expectations. Specifically, viewing work as a moral imperative may exac-
erbate US employees’ perceived need to signal commitment to work and,
therefore, to replace face time with availability outside work hours.
The different structural and cultural characteristics of the US on the
one hand and France and Spain on the other hand imply that when
employees perceive the psychological climate as valuing face time, those
working in the US may feel more expected to demonstrate availability
than those in Europe. We expect this moderating effect to also apply
to the indirect relationship between psychological climate for face time
and WFH adjustment through perceived availability expectations.
Hypothesis 4 (H4). Country context will moderate the positive relationship between
psychological climate for face time and perceived availability expectations such that
the relationship will be stronger in the US than in France and Spain.
Hypothesis 5 (H5). Country context will moderate the indirect relationship between
psychological climate for face time and WFH adjustment through perceived avail-
ability expectations such that the indirect relationship will be stronger in the US
than in France and Spain.
Method
Participants and procedure
The data for this study were gathered between September and November
2020 from a sample of employees with various functions (i.e., operations,
commercial, support) within a global financial institution with locations
in the US, Spain and France. At the time of data collection, WFH was
strongly advised whenever possible in the three countries, but they were
not in full lockdown, as schools and child care centers were open in
France, Spain, and many US states. With the consent of senior man-
agement, we e-mailed employees a secure link to the questionnaire and
informed them that anonymity and confidentiality would be ensured.
The Time 1 survey was sent during the first week of September 2020.
The Time 2 survey was sent eight weeks later, a time span that is long
enough to observe changes in remote work experience (Nyberg et al.,
2021) while limiting participant attrition and the likelihood that signif-
icant changes in workers’ context would occur (e.g., massive return to
the office). At the time of the study, employees in the three countries
had been working from home for four to five months, beginning in
March 2020 with the first lockdowns. Therefore, this timing was appro-
priate to avoid capturing the initial honeymoon-hangover effects asso-
ciated with novelty (Boswell et al., 2005).
The overall response rate was 26% at Time 1 and 42% at Time 2. To
rule out the potential confounding effects of remote work intensity and
voluntariness (Allen et al., 2015; Kniffin, Narayanan, & Van Vugt, 2021),
we retained a homogeneous subsample of full-time mandatory WFH
respondents. A total of 887 (Time 1) and 532 (Time 2) respondents
met this criterion, such that our final sample comprises 532 full-time
WFH employees. Most of the respondents (55%) worked in support
functions (e.g., human resource, compliance, purchasing). The rest held
positions in operations (e.g., trade processing, risk management; 27%),
product development (9%) and client facing functions (9%). Demographic
data are presented in Table 1.1 US-based employees and France and
Spain-based employees did not significantly differ on supervisor status,
χ2(1) = 0.74, p = .390, gender, χ2(1) = 2.88, p = .090, and having at
least one child under 13, χ2(1) = 1.11, p = .293. However, US-based
employees had more pre-pandemic remote work experience, t(526) =
−3.20, p = .001, worked longer hours, t(529) = −3.18, p = .002, were
older, t(516) = −6.20, p < .001, and had lower organizational tenure,
t(527) = 4.76, p < .001 than France and Spain-based employees. Therefore,
we controlled for these variables in the analyses.
Measures
We translated all the measures into French and Spanish using a trans-
lation and back-translation protocol (Schaffer & Riordan, 2003). The
full list of survey items is included in Appendix. A 5-point scale ranging
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) was used for all items.
Psychological climate for face time was assessed using three items (α
= .71) from Hoang et al. (2008).2 To the best of our knowledge, there
is no existing scale for psychological climate for face time. Therefore,
we selected three items referring to the specific facet of visibility in
Hoang et al.’s broader measure of corporate climate for telecommuting.
Perceived availability expectations were assessed using two items (α =
.83) from the ICT Demands Scale (Day et al., 2012). We dropped two
items of the original measure because Day and colleagues reported weak
loadings (<0.40). WFH adjustment was measured through three con-
structs reflecting its affective, behavioral and cognitive dimensions. WFH
enjoyment and WFH productivity were measured using two items (α =
.96 at Time 1; α = .96 at Time 2) and three items (α = .96 at Time 1;
α = .97 at Time 2) from Venkatesh and Speier’s (2000) measure of
appreciation in using technology, adapted by replacing “technology” with
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the sample.

Two European countries
Total United States (France and Spain)
Total sample (N) 532 344 188
Supervisor status
No (Individual contributor) 79% 78% 81%
Yes (Manager) 21% 22% 19%
Remote work experience before COVID-19 pandemic
Less than one day per month 53% 50% 58%
One to three days per month 7% 9% 4%
One day per week 20% 14% 30%
Two days per week 8% 11% 4%
Three days per week 6% 8% 1%
Four days per week 1% 2% 0%
Five days per week 5% 6% 3%
Work hours
M 45.6 46.7 43.7
SD 10.4 10.2 10.6
Gender
Male 43% 40% 48%
Female 57% 60% 52%
Age (Years)
M 44.1 46.1 40.5
SD 10.1 10.1 9.2
Presence of at least one child under 13
Yes 32% 30% 35%
Organizational tenure (Years)
M 7.7 6.6 9.8
SD 7.8 6.8 8.8
“remote working”. WFH evaluation was assessed using three items (α =

.71 at Time 1; α = .74 at Time 2) from Staples et al. (1999)’s measure
of attitude towards remote work effectiveness. Items were reworded to
compare remote work with traditional office settings. Country context
was identified by asking respondents where they currently worked (NUS
= 344, NSpain = 150, NFrance = 38).
Control variables
In addition to gender, age, presence of a child under 13, work hours,

organizational tenure, supervisor status, prior level of WFH adjustment
and prior remote work experience, we controlled for the frequency of
technological difficulties impeding work, because these are likely to
occur in new WFH settings (Ozimek, 2020) and may affect WFH adjust-
ment. We measured this variable with the item “How often do you
experience technological hassles when you work from home?” on a scale
from 1 (never) to 5 (Often, nearly every day).
Results
Descriptive statistics and correlations are presented in Table 2. We used
the maximum likelihood estimation procedure with the robust standard
error option in Mplus version 8.5.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics and Pearson correlations for the study variables.
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1. Supervisor status 1.21 0.41 –
2. Remote work experience 2.30 1.70 –.098 –
3. Work hours 45.66 10.42 .169 .012 –
4. Technological hassles 2.19 0.99 .053 .027 .100 –
5. Gender 1.58 0.50 –.141 .051 .013 .110 –
6. Age 44.07 10.13 .179 .066 .097 .131 .049 –
7. Child under 13 1.68 0.47 −.044 –.029 –.010 .097 .102 .169 –
8. Organizational tenure 7.74 7.75 .139 .063 −.008 .034 .062 .352 –.043 –
9. Country context 1.35 0.48 −.040 −.138 −.137 –.217 –.080 –.264 −.048 .202 –
10. Psychological climate for face time (T1) 2.15 0.92 .052 −.088 −.029 .077 –.107 –.045 −.041 .059 .073 –
11. Perceived availability expectations (T1) 2.07 1.16 .217 −.064 .218 .075 –.188 .089 −.088 .006 –.102 .293 –
12. Work-from-home adjustment (T1) 3.21 0.42 −.096 .100 .021 –.195 .105 .000 −.022 –.078 –.067 –.093 –.099 –
13. Work-from-home adjustment (T2) 3.19 0.40 −.115 .038 −.067 –.136 .018 .006 .016 –.056 –.044 –.128 –.150 .510
Note. Supervisor status: 1 = No, 2 = Yes; Gender: 1 = Male, 2 = Female; Child under 13: 1 = Yes, 2 = No; Country context: 1 = US, 2 = France and Spain; p < .05 when |r| > .086; p < .01
when |r| > .113; p < .001 when |r| > .145.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management
13
Measurement model
We established the proposed three-dimensional structure of WFH adjust-

ment through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. First, we
conducted exploratory factor analyses on a random half of the Time 1
data (n = 266). Using varimax rotation, a one-factor solution explained
65.0% of the variance in data, a two-factor solution, 71.7%, and a
three-factor solution, 82.1%. We retained the three-factor solution even
though one factor presented an eigenvalue of 0.55, because of the clarity
of the factor loading matrix. Indeed, every item had a loading above
.50 on its primary factor (WFH enjoyment, WFH productivity, WFH
evaluation) and all cross-loadings were below .40, except for two WFH
enjoyment items, which had cross-loading of .43 and .51 on the WFH
productivity factor.
Next, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the other
half of Time 1 data (n = 266). We specified WFH adjustment as a
second-order factor comprising the three first-order factors of WFH
enjoyment, WFH productivity, and WFH evaluation, themselves regress-
ing on their respective items. Based on established cutoff levels (Hu &
Bentler, 1999), this model yielded a good fit to the data (χ2(17) = 10.48,
comparative fit index (CFI) = 1.000, root mean-square error of approx-
imation (RMSEA) = .000, standardized root mean-square residual
(SRMR) = .012).
To establish the distinctiveness of the three study variables, we con-
ducted a CFA on Time 1 data. Psychological climate for face time and
perceived availability expectations were represented by their respective
items. WFH adjustment was modelled as a second-order factor, following
the factorial structure established in the previous model. We compared
this three-factor model with a set of nested models. As presented in
Table 3, the baseline model showed a good fit (χ2(59) = 95.24, CFI =
.989, RMSEA = .034, SRMR = .042; Hu & Bentler, 1999) and outper-
formed more parsimonious models as per the Satorra-Bentler scaled χ2
difference test (Satorra & Bentler, 2001), indicating that psychological
climate for face time, perceived availability expectations, and WFH
adjustment were distinct constructs.
We then conducted measurement invariance analyses on Time 1 data
to examine the stability of the measurement model between US-based
and France and Spain-based employees. Results of configural, metric
and scalar invariance (Vandenberg & Lance, 2000) are presented in
Table 4. We verified invariance between US and France/Spain respon-
dents, rather than between the three countries, because France and
Spain share more protective employment and disconnection legislation
(OECD, 2020) and a Catholic-based work ethic and because dividing
the European sample (n = 188) could preclude adequate power. Adequate
Table 3. Fit indices for the confirmatory factor analysis models.

Comparison with
Fit indices hypothesized model
Model χ2 df CFI RMSEA CI RMSEA SRMR SB Δχ2 Δdf p
Hypothesized three-factor 95.24* 59 .989 .034 [.021; .046] .042
model: psychological
climate for face time,
perceived availability
expectations, and WFH
adjustment
Two-factor model, 311.87* 61 .920 .088 [.078; .098] .088 165.11 2 <.001
combining
psychological climate
for face time and
perceived availability
expectations
Two-factor model, 515.34* 62 .856 .117 [.108; .127] .271 252.52 3 <.001
combining
psychological climate
for face time and WFH
adjustment
Two-factor model, 769.73* 62 .776 .146 [.137; .156] .248 725.81 3 <.001
combining perceived
availability
expectations and WFH
adjustment
One-factor model 1071.03* 65 .681 .171 [.162; .180] .122 389.30 6 <.001
Note. N = 532. df = degrees of freedom; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root-mean-square error of
approximation; CI = 90% confidence interval; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual;
SB = Santorra-Bentler scaled; *p < .001.
fit indices support configural invariance (χ2(118) = 150.76, CFI = .990,

RMSEA = .032, SRMR = .044). Metric invariance is not supported by
the significant χ2 difference test, nor is scalar invariance. However,
metric and scalar invariance are supported by the use of the alternate
and commonly used criterion of ΔCFI < −.01 (Cheung & Rensvold,
2002). Following the χ2 difference test as a decision rule, partial metric
invariance and partial scalar invariance are achieved by allowing uncon-
strained loadings on item 1 of psychological climate for face time and
by allowing unconstrained intercepts on items 1 and 2 of the same
variable. Partial invariance being the norm in cross-national studies
(Davidov et al., 2018), these results support the inclusion of respondents
from the US, France and Spain in subsequent analyses.
In line with Ford et al. (2014)’s recommendation to examine lagged
effects in organizational sciences, we controlled for the dependent vari-
able’s initial level—the autoregressive effect—in the hypothesized model.
Controlling for the autoregressive effect of WFH adjustment entails exam-
ining the stability of its measurement model between T1 and T2. Results
are presented in Table 4. Adequate fit indices support configural invari-
ance (χ2(86) = 121.02, CFI = .993, RMSEA = .028, SRMR = .019). The
successive addition of constraints—fixed loadings (metric invariance) and
fixed intercepts (scalar invariance)—did not result in a significant decrease
in model fit, supporting metric and scalar invariance of the model.
16
M.-C. AFOTA ET AL.
Table 4. Results of measurement invariance tests between country contexts and for WFH adjustment between time 1 and time 2.
Fit indices Model comparison
Model χ2 df CFI RMSEA CI RMSEA SRMR Comparison SB Δχ2 Δdf p
Invariance between country contexts
Model 1. Configural Invariance 150.76* 118 .990 .032 [.013; .047] .044
Model 2. Metric Invariance (fixed loadings) 192.86*** 128 .981 .044 [.030; .056] .060 2 vs. 1 42.60 10 < .001
Model 3. Scalar Invariance (fixed loadings and 225.51*** 135 .973 .050 [.038; .062] .059 3 vs. 2 34.46 7 < .001
intercepts)
Model 4. Partial Metric Invariance 166.54* 127 .988 .034 [.017; .048] .051 4 vs. 1 15.58 9 .076
Model 5. Partial Scalar Invariance 176.26** 132 .987 .036 [.020; .049] .052 5 vs. 4 10.27 5 .068
Invariance between Time 1 and Time 2 for WFH
adjustment
Model 6. Configural Invariance 121.02*** 86 .993 .028 [.015; .039] .019
Model 7. Metric Invariance (fixed loadings) 126.72*** 93 .994 .026 [.013; .037] .022 7 vs. 6 5.27 7 .627
Model 8. Scalar Invariance (fixed loadings and 129.64*** 97 .994 .025 [.012; .036] .022 8 vs. 7 2.18 4 .703
intercepts)
Note. N = 532. df = degrees of freedom; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root-mean-square error of approximation; CI = 90% confidence interval; SRMR = standardized root mean
square residual; SB = Santorra-Bentler scaled; T1 = Time 1; T2 = Time 2.
* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
Hypothesis testing
We conducted structural equation modeling analyses to evaluate the

hypothesized moderated mediation model. We used the XWITH com-
mand in Mplus to compute the interaction term between the latent
variable of psychological climate for face time and the centered observed
variable of country context. We posited the link between psychological
climate for face time and perceived availability expectations
cross-sectionally because the process of evaluating availability expecta-
tions as a response to organizational preferences for face time is likely
to occur in a shorter time frame than the ensuing effect on WFH
adjustment.3 Since model fit indices are unavailable with the XWITH
command, we evaluated model fit following a two-step process
(Sardeshmukh & Vandenberg, 2017). First, we evaluated the fit of an
identical model without the XWITH interaction term, which was ade-
quate (χ2(349) = 723.39, CFI = .952, RMSEA = .046, SRMR = .073).
Then, we compared the fit of this model to the model with the inter-
action term using a log-likelihood ratio test. Satorra-Bentler’s corrected
difference indicated a significant difference between the two models
when compared to the χ2 distribution (Satorra-Bentler’s D(1) = 5.62, p
= .018). Additionally, the moderated mediation model’s AIC (21552.02)
was lower than the AIC of the model without the interaction term
(21556.05), supporting the superiority of the moderated mediation
model (Sardeshmukh & Vandenberg, 2017).
Results for the moderated mediation model are presented in Table 5.
Psychological climate for face time was positively related to perceived
Table 5. Structural equations modeling results.

Perceived
availability Work-from-home
Predictor expectations (T1) adjustment (T2)
Control variables
Supervisor status .292** (.103) −.040 (.054)
Remote work experience −.008 (.026) .002 (.013)
Work hours .016** (.005) .000 (.002)
Technological hassles −.010 (.044) −.035 (.028)
Gender −.257** (.086) −.014 (.044)
Age .009 (.005) .002 (.003)
Child under 13 −.167 (.088) .006 (.048)
Organizational tenure −.001 (.006) −.008* (.003)
Work-from-home adjustment (T1) .908*** (.051)
Main variables
Psychological climate for face time (T1) .533*** (.104) .028 (.049)
Country context −.201* (.093) .012 (.053)
PCF x country context −.370* (.159)
Perceived availability expectations (T1) −.087** (.030)
R2 .271*** .892***
Note. N = 532. Unstandardized coefficients are reported. SEs are reported in parentheses.
PCF = Psychological climate for face time.
* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
Figure 1. Interaction between psychological climate for face time and country context to
predict perceived availability expectations.
availability expectations (b = .533, SE = .104, p < .001), supporting H1.

In turn, perceived availability expectations at Time 1 were negatively
associated with WFH adjustment at Time 2 (b = −.087, SE = .030, p =
.004). This supports H2. The indirect effect of psychological climate for
face time on WFH adjustment through perceived availability expectations
evaluated with bootstrapped bias corrected and accelerated confidence
intervals with 2000 resamples was significant (estimate = −.046, SE = .019,
BCa 95% CI [−.098; −.018]), lending support for H3.
Turning to the role of country context, we tested whether country
context moderated the relationship between psychological climate for
face time and perceived availability expectations. The interaction effect
of psychological climate for face time and country context on perceived
availability expectations was significant (b = −.370, SE = .159, p = .020),
supporting H4. As depicted in Figure 1, simple slopes analyses showed
that the relationship between psychological climate for face time and
perceived availability expectations was stronger in the US (estimate =
.668, SE = .131, BCa 95% CI [.440; .969]) than in France and Spain
(estimate = .298, SE = .130, BCa 95% CI [.047; .570]), and the difference
was significant (Δestimate = .370, SE = .165, BCa 95% CI [.097; .749]).
We then tested a moderated mediation effect using the index of mod-
erated mediation (IMM = .032, SE = .019, BCa 95% CI [.007; .087]).
The significant IMM supports H5 and justifies examining conditional
indirect effects. The indirect effect was stronger for US-based (esti-
mate = −.058, SE = .023, BCa 95% CI [−.121; −.022]) than for France
and Spain-based employees (estimate = −.026, SE = .015, BCa 95% CI
[−.072; −.005]), and the difference was significant (Δestimate = .032, SE
= .019, BCa 95% CI [.007; .088]). Figure 2 presents standardized estimates
of the model.
Figure 2. Final model predicting work-from-home adjustment. Note. Standardized coeffi-

cients are reported. The model controls for the autoregressive effect of work-from-home
adjustment at Time 1 on work-from-home adjustment at Time 2. The effects of control
variables on endogenous latent factors were estimated. Control variables are presented in
Table 5. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
Discussion
This study examined the relationship between psychological climate for
face time and WFH adjustment, a critical HRM outcome as high-intensity
WFH is expected to persist post-pandemic (Ozimek, 2020) and HR
practitioners need to ensure remote and hybrid work are sustainable.
Using a two-wave survey design on a sample of 532 employees in
full-time WFH due to COVID-19, this study showed that employees’
perceptions that face time is valued and rewarded in their organization
were associated with higher perceptions of availability expectations in
the WFH setting, leading to poorer WFH adjustment 8 weeks later. The
relationship between psychological climate for face time and perceived
availability expectations was stronger in the US than in France and
Spain, such that the indirect negative effect of psychological climate for
face time on WFH adjustment was stronger in the US than in France
and Spain. Hence, these results shed light on the conditions of employ-
ees’ successful adjustment to high-intensity WFH.
We identified perceived availability expectations as a mediating mech-
anism in the relationship between psychological climate for face time
and WFH adjustment. Our study thus suggests that full-time remote
workers may feel vulnerable to an invisibility stigma. In line with sig-
naling theory (Spence, 1973) and the related literature on visibility at
work (Beauregard et al., 2019; Connelly et al., 2011; Cristea & Leonardi,
2019), our results suggest that when employees are deprived of the
ability to communicate their commitment through face time, they feel
under pressure to turn to alternative ways (i.e., extended availability) to
prove their value. Others have suggested that in the absence of face
time, managers rely more on actual outputs to assess employees’ work
(Groen et al., 2018). Yet, our findings indicate that instead of freeing
employees from displaying physical presence at the office and leaving

them time to focus on work outputs, remote work in a psychological
climate for face time may lead employees to replace visibility by extended
availability, which ultimately increases the length of their work day (e.g.,
DeFilippis et al., 2020).
Second, the ‘over-availability syndrome’ exhibited by teleworkers
(Harpaz, 2002) has been identified as a major drawback of remote
work (Dettmers, 2017; Dettmers, Vahle-Hinz, et al., 2016). Yet previous
research has not identified its roots and has produced little longitu-
dinal evidence for its effects (Becker et al., 2021; Dettmers, 2017). By
controlling for the baseline levels of WFH adjustment, our study
demonstrates that perceptions of a psychological climate for face time
and of high availability expectations hamper WFH adjustment over
time. Our results suggest that extended availability is perceived as a
coping strategy in response to a situation that the employee may
evaluate as threatening to their tenure and success in the organization.
Our findings further reinforce the nascent idea (e.g., Becker et al.,
2021; Belkin et al., 2020) that connectivity expectations may in them-
selves act as a stressor, regardless of actual behavior. By identifying
psychological climate for face time as an antecedent of WFH adjust-
ment, this research emphasizes the crucial role of HRM practices in
the success of remote and hybrid work (Carnevale & Hatak, 2020).
HRM practices pertaining to performance appraisal and career devel-
opment shape climate perceptions, thereby affecting outcomes for
employees (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004). Thus, this research calls for
detailed attention to the specific HRM practices that may foster or
attenuate climate for face time.
Third, our study constitutes a rare cross-national examination of
remote work outcomes. Departing from research that relegates national
context to the limitations section of manuscripts (Johns, 2006), we
explore the role that structural and cultural factors of the national
context (Ollier-Malaterre & Foucreault, 2017) may play in WFH
adjustment. We found that US-based employees are more likely than
France and Spain-based employees to feel pressured to display
extended availability when their work environment values face time.
Plausible explanations for these findings pertain to the weaker employ-
ment protection legislation and the moral value attached to work in
the Protestant tradition of the US, as compared to stronger employ-
ment protection and right to disconnect legislation and dissociation
between work and morality in Catholic European countries. Our
findings, although exploratory, demonstrate the relevance of embed-
ding variables that reflect national context in HRM research (Tsui
et al., 2007).
Limitations & future research
The exceptional circumstances of COVID-19 during which this research

was conducted allowed us to examine WFH adjustment in a homoge-
neous sample. Despite our attrition analyses, we cannot completely rule
out that the circumstances have skewed our sample towards higher
engaged and adjusted employees, as those with low levels of work
engagement may have been less willing to participate. If so, our study
estimates are likely conservative. Future research may also seek to rep-
licate our study among employees who work from home in high-intensity
yet not full-time modes, as some quantity of face time may partially
compensate for career penalties associated with remote work (Golden
& Eddleston, 2020). Whether WFH is voluntary is also an important
factor (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007), as those who decide to work from
home may feel less threatened by a climate that promotes face time.
Additional research may also examine the potential boundary effect of
specific job characteristics (e.g., overtime hours payment, schedule con-
trol, task interdependency) that significantly impact the nature of tele-
commuters’ experience (Allen et al., 2015). For example, non-exempt
workers may be subjected to stricter overtime policies and thus feel less
pressured to demonstrate their availabilities outside regular work hours.
Future methodological choices must also be considered. Although our
two-wave dataset enabled us to assess the effects of availability expec-
tations in a rigorous way, a more robust test of our mediation model
could be conducted with a three-wave longitudinal design. Additionally,
we analyzed employees’ perceptions because perceptions are arguably
more important in explaining how employees affectively and cognitively
adjust to WFH; however, this focus does not allow us to draw conclu-
sions about the actual characteristics of the work environment (Schneider
et al., 2017). Future research could measure supervisors’ tendency to
rely on face time in assessing employee performance, and examine its
effects on employees’ perceived availability expectations, thereby lessening
potential common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2012). Another inter-
esting avenue would be to explore the role of boundary management
in buffering the effects of perceived availability expectations.
Work-nonwork segmentation enactment (Allen et al., 2014) could prevent
the negative effects of the pressure to remain extensively available.
Employees who prefer work–life integration could also be less prone to
suffering from an organizational context promoting intrusions into non-
work domains (Rothbard et al., 2005).
Future research might extend our examination of climate for face
time in two ways. First, the scope of our definition of psychological
climate for face time in this research is circumscribed to expectations
from within the organization and practices communicated by supervisors

and peers. This approach is consistent with the emphasis of the face
time literature on internal workplace interactions (e.g., Beauregard et al.,
2019; Cristea & Leonardi, 2019; Shockley & Allen, 2010). Yet, pressures
for face time may also emerge from external interactions with clients
or customers. Such pressure for face time should be less pronounced
for clients and customers who should be more prone to judge employees’
work based on actual performance (i.e., quality of the product or service
delivered) rather than on their dedication to the job. Yet, some employ-
ees—for example consultants working at client sites—may still be
expected to display face time to demonstrate their commitment to the
client’s success. Similarly, availability expectations may also come from
clients and customers (Dettmers, 2017). Future research may document
the existence and nature of face time pressures and resulting perceived
availability expectations in these contexts. Second, further investigations
could seek to verify whether individual perceptions of climate for face
time can be aggregated to a higher level (e.g., team or organization
level) and whether such organizational climate for face time explains
incremental variance in perceived availability expectations beyond indi-
vidual perceptions. Such research is needed to draw conclusions on the
impact of individual vs. shared perceptions of the work environment
(Schneider et al., 2017).
We believe that our findings call for further investigation of availability
as a proxy signal for commitment in WFH contexts. Research on sig-
naling in distributed teams has suggested that employees’ efforts to
display availability were often not recognized by their managers (Cristea
& Leonardi, 2019), raising the issue of the effectiveness of using such
signals in remote work settings. Moreover, future research may investi-
gate how the social context in which virtual work takes place, and
especially telecommuting normativeness (Gajendran et al., 2015), may
shape perceived availability expectations and WFH adjustment. The
matter deserves attention because when remote work is the norm, on
the one hand employees suffer fewer penalties (Golden & Eddleston,
2020), yet on the other hand, social comparison processes coupled with
the fact that employees lack detailed information about what their col-
leagues do, may lead to an escalation of perceived availability expecta-
tions, hence worsening employees’ WFH adjustment.
Furthermore, our study is an important first step towards examining
contextual factors that impact remote work at the country level. While
we considered employment protection legislation and the meanings
attached to work ethics to explain the impact of country context, future
research could investigate the role of other structural and cultural factors
as well as examine a larger set of national contexts.
Practical implications
The present research shows that poor WFH adjustment results from
specific perceptions of workplace climates. As widespread WFH is likely
to be a legacy of the pandemic (Ozimek, 2020), these findings suggest
that organizations that publicly express doubts about whether employees
are productive when teleworking may be shooting themselves in the
foot. By expressing such concerns, these organizations may create or
reinforce a psychological climate that emphasizes face time, which even-
tually harms employee WFH adjustment.
Organizations that offer high-intensity WFH should aim to foster cli-
mates that do not send cues that visibility is necessary to meet performance
expectations. HR interventions to change climate should target the prac-
tices, policies, and procedures that shape employees’ perceptions of work-
place expectations. For example, organizations may adopt and communicate
clear rules on promotion and salary increases based on output rather than
in-office presence (Kulik, 2022). Offering training to supervisors on the
benefits of remote and hybrid work and making them aware of the longer
hours and more intensive days of remote workers (Messenger et al., 2017)
can help change supervisors’ perceptions of WFH and the way they assess
performance. Training may also emphasize the benefits of maintaining
healthy boundaries between work and personal life for employees and
organizations in the long run (Kossek, 2016). Managers of all levels should
actively support the efforts aimed at promoting a healthier work climate
and act as role models (Dragoni, 2005) by making sure their own face
time and/or availability do not signal availability expectations beyond what
the organization considers a regular work schedule.
Importantly, organizations should openly communicate their trust
towards remote workers, by explicitly defining expectations and by banning
the newer forms of digital surveillance, such as keylogging or front-facing
cameras, that signal mistrust (Tomczak & Behrend, 2019). Organizational
interventions may also directly target perceived availability expectations,
for example by setting a next-day response expectation for non-urgent
communications sent outside of regular work hours (Piszczek, 2017). Such
efforts should be coupled with a collective reflection on which commu-
nication tool to use in which situation (e.g., urgent vs non-urgent matter).
Conclusion
As WFH is here to stay (Barrero et al., 2020) our study sheds light on
important antecedents of employees’ WFH adjustment. We have focused
on psychological climate for face time and employees’ perceptions of
the availability signals they need to send to ensure they are viewed as
committed to work and performing well. We hope that our findings
will open up avenues for new research on how organizations and man-
agers can reinvent work cultures to better promote sustainable employee
performance and well-being.
Notes
1. We conducted an analysis to ensure that respondent attrition did not threaten the
randomness of the sample over time (Goodman & Blum, 1996). None of the
predictors entered in a logistic regression model (i.e., psychological climate for
face time, perceived availability expectations, gender, age, country, job level, job
function, previous experience of regular remote work, work hours) predicted the
likelihood of completing the questionnaire at Time 2 (χ2 (14) = 12.10, ns), in-
dicating that attrition was not a significant bias in this research. To check wheth-
er the trying circumstances of November 2020 had affected employees’ engagement
with work and subsequent participation at Time 2, we also ran a logistic regres-
sion testing whether affective commitment to the organization and to colleagues
at Time 1 predicted the likelihood to remain in the study at Time 2. The results
were not significant, suggesting that completers and withdrawers did not differ
on that variable.
2. We conducted additional analyses to test if our data would warrant treating climate
for face time as a higher-level aggregate. We grouped respondents based on
business units and computed the average interrater agreement (RWG(J)) and the
intraclass correlations to examine the effect of group membership on face time
ratings (ICC[1]) and the reliability of group means (ICC[2]). Results were 0.61
(RWG(J)), 0.04 (ICC[1]), F= 1.38, p = 0.04, and 0.28 (ICC[2]). These results
suggest a statistically significant, yet weak, group membership effect. Both the
RWG(J) value and the ICC(1) values fell below the recommended minimum val-
ues to warrant aggregation (Bliese, 2000), indicating that treating climate for face
time as an individual variable is appropriate.
3. We also tested a partial model where country context moderated the relationship
between psychological climate for face time at Time 1 and perceived availability
expectations at Time 2, controlling for perceived availability expectations at Time
1. This model yielded similar results to the complete moderated mediation mod-
el, with the interaction term having a marginally significant effect on perceived
availability expectations (b = -.216, SE = .115, p = .060). Moreover, simple slope
analyses uncovered a significant relationship between psychological climate for
face time and perceived availability expectations for workers based in the US
(estimate = .150, BCa 95% CI [.009; .309]), but not in France and Spain- (esti-
mate = -.066, BCa 95% CI [-.270; .110]).
Disclosure Statement
None.
Funding
This research was supported by funding from the Reinventing Work Chair at ESCP
Business School, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (grant
# 435-2018_1337) and the Social Sciences Faculty of Université du Québec à Montréal.
This study was approved by the ESCP Business School Research Ethics Committee
(approval no. 202006601).
Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding
author upon reasonable request.
References
Adamovic, M., Gahan, P., Olsen, J., Gulyas, A., Shallcross, D., & Mendoza, A. (2021).
Exploring the adoption of virtual work: the role of virtual work self-efficacy and
virtual work climate. The International Journal of Human Resource Management.
Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2021.1913623
Adisa, T. A., Ogbonnaya, C., & Adekoya, O. D. (2021). Remote working and employ-
ee engagement: A qualitative study of British workers during the pandemic.
Information Technology & People. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1108/
ITP-12-2020-0850
Allen, T. D., Cho, E., & Meier, L. L. (2014). Work–family boundary dynamics. Annual
Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 99–121.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091330
Allen, T. D., Golden, T. D., & Shockley, K. M. (2015). How effective is telecommuting?
Assessing the status of our scientific findings. Psychological Science in the Public
Interest, 16(2), 40–68.
Barber, L. K., & Santuzzi, A. M. (2015). Please respond ASAP: Workplace telepressure
and employee recovery. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 20(2), 172–189.
Barrero, J. M., Bloom, N., & Davis, S. J. (2020). Why working from home will stick.
(Becker Friedman Institute for Economics Working Paper, No. 2020-174). University
of Chicago. https://bfi.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/BFI_WP_2020174.pdf
Beauregard, T. A., Basile, K. A., & Canónico, E. (2019). Telework: Outcomes and fa-
cilitators for employees. In R. N. Landers (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of tech-
nology and employee behavior. (pp. 511–543). Cambridge University Press.
Becker, W. J., Belkin, L. Y., Conroy, S. A., & Tuskey, S. (2021). Killing me softly:
Organizational e-mail monitoring expectations’ impact on employee and significant
other well-being. Journal of Management, 47(4), 1024–1052. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0149206319890655
Belkin, L. Y., Becker, W. J., & Conroy, S. A. (2020). The invisible leash: The impact of
organizational expectations for email monitoring after-hours on employee resources,
well-being, and turnover intentions. Group & Organization Management, 45(5), 709–
740. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601120933143
Berglund, T., & Furåker, B. (2016). Employment protection regulation, trade unions
and tenure of employment: An analysis in 23 European countries. Industrial Relations
Journal, 47(5-6), 492–512. https://doi.org/10.1111/irj.12159
Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability:
Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski
(Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, exten-
sions, and new directions (pp. 349–381). Jossey-Bass.
Boswell, W. R., Boudreau, J. W., & Tichy, J. (2005). The relationship between employ-
ee job change and job satisfaction: The honeymoon-hangover effect. The Journal of
Applied Psychology, 90(5), 882–892.
Bowen, D. E., & Ostroff, C. (2004). Understanding HRM-firm performance linkages:

The role of the “strength” of the HRM system. The Academy of Management Review,
29(2), 203–221.
Bunderson, J. S., & Thompson, J. A. (2009). The call of the wild: Zookeepers, callings,
and the doubled-edged sword of deeply meaningful work. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 54(1), 32–57. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2009.54.1.32
Carnevale, J. B., & Hatak, I. (2020). Employee adjustment and well-being in the era
of COVID-19: Implications for human resource management. Journal of Business
Research, 116, 183–187.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for test-
ing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal,
9(2), 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
Connelly, B. L., Certo, S. T., Ireland, R. D., & Reutzel, C. R. (2011). Signaling theory:
A review and assessment. Journal of Management, 37(1), 39–67. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0149206310388419
Cristea, I. C., & Leonardi, P. M. (2019). Get noticed and die trying: Signals, sacrifice,
and the production of face time in distributed work. Organization Science, 30(3),
552–572. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2018.1265
Davidov, E., Muthen, B., & Schmidt, P. (2018). Measurement invariance in cross-national
studies: Challenging traditional approaches and evaluating new ones. Sociological
Methods & Research, 47(4), 631–636. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124118789708
Davies, S. E., Stoermer, S., & Froese, F. J. (2019). When the going gets tough: the
influence of expatriate resilience and perceived organizational inclusion climate on
work adjustment and turnover intentions. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 30(8), 1393–1417. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2018.1528558
Day, A., Paquet, S., Scott, N., & Hambley, L. (2012). Perceived information and com-
munication technology (ICT) demands on employee outcomes: The moderating effect
of organizational ICT support. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17(4),
473–491.
DeFilippis, E., Impink, S. M., Singell, M., Polzer, J., & Sadun, R. (2020). Collaborating
during coronavirus: The impact of covid-19 on the nature of work. (NBER Working
Paper No. 27612). National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper. https://
www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w27612/w27612.pdf
Derks, D., Bakker, A. B., Peters, P., & van Wingerden, P. (2016). Work-related smart-
phone use, work–family conflict and family role performance: The role of segmen-
tation preference. Human Relations, 69(5), 1045–1068. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0018726715601890
Dettmers, J. (2017). How extended work availability affects well-being: The mediating
roles of psychological detachment and work-family-conflict. Work & Stress, 31(1),
24–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2017.1298164
Dettmers, J., Bamberg, E., & Seffzek, K. (2016). Characteristics of extended availabili-
ty for work: The role of demands and resources. International Journal of Stress
Management, 23(3), 276–297. https://doi.org/10.1037/str0000014
Dettmers, J., Vahle-Hinz, T., Bamberg, E., Friedrich, N., & Keller, M. (2016). Extended
work availability and its relation with start-of-day mood and cortisol. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 21(1), 105–118.
D’Iribarne, P. (1989). La logique de l’honneur. Gestion des entreprises et traditions na-
tionales. Éditions du Seuil.
Dragoni, L. (2005). Understanding the emergence of state goal orientation in organi-
zational work groups: the role of leadership and multilevel climate perceptions. The
Jour nal of Appli ed Psy chol o g y , 9 0 ( 6 ) , 1 0 8 4 – 1 0 9 5 . http s : / / d oi.

org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1084
Eby, L. T., Adams, D. M., Russell, J., & Gaby, S. H. (2000). Perceptions of organiza-
tional readiness for change: Factors related to employees’ reactions to the implemen-
tation of team-based selling. Human Relations, 53(3), 419–442. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0018726700533006
Elsbach, K. D., & Cable, D. M. (2012). Why showing your face at work matters. MIT
Sloan Management Review, 53(4), 10–12.
Elsbach, K. D., Cable, D. M., & Sherman, J. W. (2010). How passive “face time” affects
perceptions of employees: Evidence of spontaneous trait inference. Human Relations,
63(6), 735–760. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726709353139
Eurofound (2017). Sixth European working conditions survey – Overview report (2017
update), Publications. Office of the European Union. https://www.eurofound.europa.
eu/publications/report/2016/working-conditions/sixth-european-working-condition
s-survey-overview-report
Farndale, E., Raghuram, S., Gully, S., Liu, X., Phillips, J. M., & Vidović, M. (2017). A
vision of international HRM research. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 28(12), 1625–1639. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1308416
Feldman, E., Reid, E. M., & Mazmanian, M. (2020). Signs of our time: Time-use as
dedication, performance, identity, and power in contemporary workplaces. Academy
of Management Annals, 14(2), 598–626. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0148
Ferguson, M., Carlson, D., Boswell, W., Whitten, D., Butts, M. M., & Kacmar, K. M.
(2016). Tethered to work: A family systems approach linking mobile device use to
turnover intentions. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(4), 520–534.
Fonner, K. L., & Roloff, M. E. (2012). Testing the connectivity paradox: Linking tele-
workers’ communication media use to social presence, stress from interruptions, and
organizational identification. Communication Monographs, 79(2), 205–231. https://
doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2012.673000
Ford, M. T., Matthews, R. A., Wooldridge, J. D., Mishra, V., Kakar, U. M., & Strahan,
S. R. (2014). How do occupational stressor-strain effects vary with time? A review
and meta-analysis of the relevance of time lags in longitudinal studies. Work &
Stress, 28(1), 9–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2013.877096
Gajendran, R. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2007). The good, the bad, and the unknown
about telecommuting: Meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual con-
sequences. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1524–1541.
Gajendran, R. S., Harrison, D. A., & Delaney-Klinger, K. (2015). Are telecommuters re-
motely good citizens? Unpacking telecommuting’s effects on performance via i-deals and
job resources. Personnel Psychology, 68(2), 353–393. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12082
Glick, W. H. (1985). Conceptualizing and measuring organizational and psychological
climate: Pitfalls in multilevel research. The Academy of Management Review, 10(3),
601–616. https://doi.org/10.2307/258140
Golden, T. D., & Eddleston, K. A. (2020). Is there a price telecommuters pay? Examining
the relationship between telecommuting and objective career success. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 116Article, 103348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.103348
Goodman, J. S., & Blum, T. C. (1996). Assessing the non-random sampling effects of
subject attrition in longitudinal research. Journal of Management, 22(4), 627–652.
https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639602200405
Groen, B. A. C., van Triest, S. P., Coers, M., & Wtenweerde, N. (2018). Managing
flexible work arrangements: Teleworking and output controls. European Management
Journal, 36(6), 727–735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2018.01.007
Harpaz, I. (2002). Advantages and disadvantages of telecommuting for the individual, orga-
nization and society. Work Study, 51(2), 74–80. https://doi.org/10.1108/00438020210418791
Hoang, A. T., Nickerson, R. C., Beckman, P., & Eng, J. (2008). Telecommuting and
corporate culture: Implications for the mobile enterprise. Information Knowledge
Systems Management, 7(1‒2), 77–97.
Hochwarter, W. A., Ferris, G. R., Zinko, R., Arnell, B., & James, M. (2007). Reputation
as a moderator of political behavior–work outcomes relationships: A two study in-
vestigation with convergent results. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 567–576.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. [Database] https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Hu, X., Park, Y., Day, A., & Barber, L. K. (2021). Time to disentangle the information
and communication technology (ICT) constructs: developing a taxonomy around ICT
use for occupational health research. Occupational Health Science, 5(1-2), 217–245.
Hu, X., Santuzzi, A. M., & Barber, L. K. (2019). Disconnecting to detach: The role of
impaired recovery in negative consequences of workplace telepressure. Journal of
Work & Organizational Psychology, 35(1), 9–15.
James, L. R., Choi, C. C., Ko, C. H. E., McNeil, P. K., Minton, M. K., Wright, M. A.,
& Kim, K. I. (2008). Organizational and psychological climate: A review of theory
and research. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 17(1), 5–32.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320701662550
Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy
of Management Review, 31(2), 386–408. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.20208687
Kessler, S. R. (2019). Are the costs worth the benefits? Shared perception and the
aggregation of organizational climate ratings. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
40(9-10), 1046–1054. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2415
Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. (2000). From micro to meso: Critical steps in con-
ceptualizing and conducting multilevel research. Organizational Research Methods,
3(3), 211–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810033001
Kniffin, K. M., Narayanan, J., Anseel, F., Antonakis, J., Ashford, S. P., Bakker, A. B.,
Bamberger, P., Bapuji, H., Bhave, D. P., Choi, V. K., Creary, S. J., Demerouti, E.,
Flynn, F. J., Gelfand, M. J., Greer, L. L., Johns, G., Kesebir, S., Klein, P. G., Lee, S.
Y., … Wilmot, M. P. (2021). COVID-19 and the workplace: Implications, issues, and
insights for future research and action. The American Psychologist, 76(1), 63–77.
https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000716
Kniffin, K. M., Narayanan, J., & Van Vugt, M. (2021). COVID-19 is a moderating
variable with its own moderating factors. Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
14(1-2), 149–151. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2021.38
Kossek, E. E. (2016). Managing work-life boundaries in the digital age. Organizational
Dynamics, 45(3), 258–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2016.07.010
Kossek, E. E., Ruderman, M. N., Braddy, P. W., & Hannum, K. M. (2012). Work–non-
work boundary management profiles: A person-centered approach. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 81(1), 112–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2012.04.003
Kuenzi, M., & Schminke, M. (2009). Assembling fragments into a lens: A review,
critique, and proposed research agenda for the organizational work climate literature.
Journal of Management, 35(3), 634–717. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308330559
Kulik, C. T. (2022). We need a hero: HR and the “next normal” workplace. Human
Resource Management Journal, 32(1), 216–231. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12387
Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review
and two-component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107(1), 34–47. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.1.34
Maddux, J. E., & Lewis, J. (1995). Self-efficacy and adjustment. In Maddux, J. E. (Ed.),
Self-efficacy, Adaptation, and Adjustment, The Plenum Series in Social/Clinical
Psychology., pp. 37–68. Springer.
McDonald, P., Bradley, L., & Brown, K. (2008). Visibility in the workplace: Still an
essential ingredient for career success? The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 19(12), 2198–2215. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190802479447
Messenger, J., Vargas Llave, O., Gschwind, L., Boehmer, S., Vermeylen, G., & Wilkens,
M. (2017). Working anytime, anywhere: the effects on the world of work. Publications
Office of the European Union, International Labour Office. https://www.eurofound.
europa.eu/publications/report/2017/working-anytime-anywherethe-effects-on-the-
world-of-work.
Munck, B. (2001). Changing a culture of face time. Harvard Business Review, 79(10),
125–130.
Muratbekova-Touron, M., & Leon, E. (2021). Is there anybody out there?” Using a
telepresence robot to engage in face time at the office. Information Technology &
People. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-01-2021-0080
Neal, A., Griffin, M., & Hart, P. (2000). The impact of organizational climate on safe-
ty climate and individual behavior. Safety Science, 34(1-3), 99–109. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0925-7535(00)00008-4
Nyberg, A. J., Shaw, J. D., & Zhu, J. (2021). The People Still Make the (Remote Work-
) Place: Lessons from a Pandemic. Journal of Management, 47(8), 1967–1976. https://
doi.org/10.1177/01492063211023563
Ollier-Malaterre, A., & Foucreault, A. (2017). Cross-national work-life research: Cultural
and structural impacts for individuals and organizations. Journal of Management,
43(1), 111–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316655873
Ollier-Malaterre, A., Valcour, M., Den Dulk, L., & Kossek, E. E. (2013). Theorizing
national context to develop comparative work-life research: Building bricks and
research agenda. European Management Journal, 31(5), 433–494. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.emj.2013.05.002
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2020). OECD Employment
Outlook 2020: Worker Security and the COVID-19 Crisis. Éditions OECD.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2021). OECD Employment
Outlook 2021: Navigating the COVID-19 Crisis and Recovery. Éditions OECD.
Ozimek, A. (2020). The future of remote work. Available at SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.
com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3638597
Parker, C. P., Baltes, B. B., Young, S. A., Huff, J. W., Altmann, R. A., Lacost, H. A., &
Roberts, J. E. (2003). Relationships between psychological climate perceptions and
work outcomes: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(4),
389–416. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.198
Piderit, S. K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidi-
mensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change. The Academy of
Management Review, 25(4), 783–794. https://doi.org/10.2307/259206
Piszczek, M. M. (2017). Boundary control and controlled boundaries: Organizational
expectations for technology use at the work–family interface. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 38(4), 592–611. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2153
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias
in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review
of Psychology, 63(1), 539–569.
Raghuram, S., Garud, R., Wiesenfeld, B., & Gupta, V. (2001). Factors contributing to
virtual work adjustment. Journal of Management, 27(3), 383–405. https://doi.
org/10.1177/014920630102700309
Rothbard, N. P., Phillips, K. W., & Dumas, T. L. (2005). Managing multiple roles:
Work-family policies and individuals’ desires for segmentation. Organization Science,
16(3), 243–258. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0124
Ryan, A. M., Sacco, J. M., McFarland, L. A., & Kriska, S. D. (2000). Applicant
self-election: Correlates of withdrawal from a multiple hurdle process. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 85(2), 163–179. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.2.163
Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2000). The role of dispositions, entry stressors, and
behavioral plasticity theory in predicting newcomers’ adjustment to work. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 21(1), 43–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(2000
02)21:1<43::AID-JOB985>3.0.CO;2-W
Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job
attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(2), 224–253.
Santuzzi, A. M., & Barber, L. K. (2018). Workplace telepressure and worker well-being:
The intervening role of psychological detachment. Occupational Health Science, 2(4),
337–363. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41542-018-0022-8
Sardeshmukh, S. R., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2017). Integrating moderation and mediation:
A structural equation modeling approach. Organizational Research Methods, 20(4),
721–745. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428115621609
Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2001). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for
moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66(4), 507–514. https://doi.org/10.1007/
BF02296192
Schaffer, B. S., & Riordan, C. M. (2003). A review of cross-cultural methodologies for
organizational research: A best-practices approach. Organizational Research Methods,
6(2), 169–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428103251542
Schneider, B. (2000). The psychological life of organizations. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C.
P. M. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of organizational culture and
climate. (pp. xvii–xxxi). Sage.
Schneider, B., & Bowen, D. E. (1985). Employee and customer perceptions of service
in banks: Replication and extension. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(3), 423–433.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.70.3.423
Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., & Macey, W. H. (2013). Organizational climate and
culture. Annual Review of Psychology, 64(1), 361–388. https://doi.org/10.1146/
annurev-psych-113011-143809
Schneider, B., González-Romá, V., Ostroff, C., & West, M. A. (2017). Organizational
climate and culture: Reflections on the history of the constructs in the Journal of
Applied Psychology. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 468–482.
Sewell, G., & Taskin, L. (2015). Out of sight, out of mind in a new world of work?
Autonomy, control, and spatiotemporal scaling in telework. Organization Studies,
36(11), 1507–1529. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840615593587
Shockley, K. M., & Allen, T. D. (2010). Investigating the missing link in flexible work
arrangement utilization: An individual difference perspective. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 76(1), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2009.07.002
Spence, M. (1973). Job market signaling. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(3),
355–374. https://doi.org/10.2307/1882010
Staples, D. S., Hulland, J. S., & Higgins, C. A. (1999). A self-efficacy theory explanation
for the management of remote workers in virtual organizations. Organization Science,
10(6), 758–776. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.10.6.758
Tierney, P. (1999). Work relations as a precursor to a psychological climate for change.
Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(2), 120–134. https://doi.
org/10.1108/09534819910263668
Tomczak, D., & Behrend, T. (2019). Electronic surveillance and privacy. In R. Landers
(Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of technology and employee behavior. (pp. 708–742).
Cambridge University Press.
Tsui, A. S., Nifadkar, S. S., & Yi Ou, A. (2007). Cross-national, cross-cultural organi-
zational behavior research: Advances, gaps, and recommendations. Journal of
Management, 33(3), 426–478. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307300818
Uhlmann, E. L., & Sanchez-Burks, J. (2014). The implicit legacy of American
Protestantism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45(6), 992–1006. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0022022114527344
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement
invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organization-
al research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4–−70. https://doi.
org/10.1177/109442810031002
Venkatesh, V., & Speier, C. (2000). Creating an effective training environment for
enhancing telework. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 52(6), 991–
1005. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.1999.0367
Vohs, K. D., Baumeister, R. F., & Ciarocco, N. J. (2005). Self-regulation and
self-presentation: Regulatory resource depletion impairs impression management and
effortful self-presentation depletes regulatory resources. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 88(4), 632–657.
Wang, B., Liu, Y., Qian, J., & Parker, S. K. (2021). Achieving effective remote working
during the COVID-19 pandemic: A work design perspective. Applied Psychology,
70(1), 16–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12290
Ward, C., Bochner, S., & Furnham, A. (2001). The psychology of culture shock. Routledge.
Appendix: Study measures

Psychological climate for face time (Hoang et al., 2008)
1. [Organization name] has a high level of trust in remote workers that they would
fulfill their daily responsibility remotely. (R)
2. At [Organization name], the reduced physical visibility of a remote worker does
NOT inhibit his/her career goal achievement. (R)
3. The culture of [Organization name] is still predominantly office-centric and thus
being a remote worker is a disadvantage.
Perceived availability expectations (Day et al., 2012)

1. I am expected to check e-mail and/or voicemail outside of regular work hours.
2. I am contacted about work-related issues outside of regular work hours.
Country context
Which country do you currently work in?
1. US
2. France
3. Spain
Work-from-home enjoyment (adapted from Venkatesh & Speier, 2000)

1. I find working remotely to be enjoyable.
2. Working remotely is pleasant.
Work-from-home productivity (adapted from Venkatesh & Speier, 2000)

1. Working remotely improves my performance in my job.
2. Working remotely increases my productivity.
3. Working remotely enhances my effectiveness in my job.
Work-from-home evaluation (adapted from Staples et al., 1999)

1. Overall, employees are more productive in a traditional office setting than when
they work remotely.
2. Overall, it is more difficult for employees to do the job being remotely
managed.
3. Working remotely is a less efficient way to work than working in a traditional
office setting.

Work From Home Adjustment in The US and Europe The Role of Psychological Climate For Face Time and Perceived Availability Expectations

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Work From Home Adjustment in The US and Europe The Role of Psychological Climate For Face Time and Perceived Availability Expectations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The International Journal of Human Resource

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rijh20

Work-from-home adjustment in the US and

Marie-Colombe Afota, Yanick Provost Savard, Ariane Ollier-Malaterre &

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2022.2090269

Published online: 07 Jul 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 211

View related articles

View Crossmark data

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

Work-from-home adjustment in the US and Europe:

Along with broad impacts on individuals’ lives, the COVID-19 pandemic

CONTACT Marie-Colombe Afota marie-colombe.afota@umontreal.ca School of Industrial Relations

& Harrison, 2007). Understanding the causes of and mechanisms under-

poorer WFH adjustment. Qualitative accounts have documented that

In organizational settings, climate refers to the perceptions and inter-

(Shockley & Allen, 2010). In such a context characterized by managers’

observe employees’ constant availability. Managers may in fact check

Perceived availability expectations and WFH adjustment

Below, we examine WFH adjustment as a consequence of perceived

relationship between perceived availability expectations and WFH adjust-

The role of country context

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the sample.

“remote working”. WFH evaluation was assessed using three items (α =

In addition to gender, age, presence of a child under 13, work hours,

We established the proposed three-dimensional structure of WFH adjust-

Table 3. Fit indices for the confirmatory factor analysis models.

fit indices support configural invariance (χ2(118) = 150.76, CFI = .990,

We conducted structural equation modeling analyses to evaluate the

Table 5. Structural equations modeling results.

availability expectations (b = .533, SE = .104, p < .001), supporting H1.

Figure 2. Final model predicting work-from-home adjustment. Note. Standardized coeffi-

employees from displaying physical presence at the office and leaving

Limitations & future research

The exceptional circumstances of COVID-19 during which this research

from within the organization and practices communicated by supervisors

Data availability statement

Bowen, D. E., & Ostroff, C. (2004). Understanding HRM-firm performance linkages:

Jour nal of Appli ed Psy chol o g y , 9 0 ( 6 ) , 1 0 8 4 – 1 0 9 5 . http s : / / d oi.

Appendix: Study measures

Perceived availability expectations (Day et al., 2012)

Work-from-home enjoyment (adapted from Venkatesh & Speier, 2000)

Work-from-home productivity (adapted from Venkatesh & Speier, 2000)

Work-from-home evaluation (adapted from Staples et al., 1999)

You might also like