The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0368-492X.htm

The moderating role of The moderating

role of
organizational culture on the organizational
culture
relationship between workers’
attitudes towards telework
and happiness Received 14 February 2022
Revised 15 March 2022
5 April 2022
Ana Junça Silva Accepted 6 May 2022
ISCTE-Instituto Universit
ario de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal and
IPT - Instituto Polit
ecnico de Tomar, Tomar, Portugal, and
Neuza Coelho
IPT - Instituto Polit
ecnico de Tomar, Tomar, Portugal

Abstract
Purpose – The COVID-19 pandemic forced organizations to adopt telework, many of the organizations
without any prior preparation, influencing not only daily organizational routines but also workers’ happiness.
Happiness is important for organizations because happy and fulfilled workers are a key to achieving
organizational success. Organizational culture is a critical factor to implement telework, because that may
influence the workers’ attitudes toward this model of work and workers’ happiness. This study aimed to test
the moderating role of organizational culture (clan, adhocracy, market and hierarchical) in the relationship
between attitudes toward teleworking and happiness.
Design/methodology/approach – To meet the objectives, the authors collected data from 265 teleworkers.
Findings – The results revealed that only market culture moderated the relationship between attitudes toward
teleworking and happiness, such that this relationship became stronger in the presence of a goal-oriented
culture. No other dimension of organizational culture significantly moderated the relationship between
telework and happiness.
Practical implications – These results prove to be fundamental for a better understanding of organizational
and individual factors when organizations want to implement telework as a work arrangement.
Originality/value – Considering the mainstream literature in telework, to the best of the authors’ knowledge,
this is the first study to date to integrate the moderating role of organizational culture in the relationship
between telework and happiness.
Keywords Telework, Happiness, Organizational culture
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Telework – a flexible work arrangement – enables workers to do their jobs from other
locations and not necessarily at the employer’s facilities (Grant et al., 2018). Over the years,
teleworking has been adopted in several countries by diverse organizations as a way to
attract, retain, and/or motivate talented and skilled new-generation workers (Kwon and Jeon,
2020). However, the COVID-19 crisis accelerated and forced employers to adopt this model of

Compliance of ethical standard statement: All procedures performed in studies involving human
participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research
committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical
standards.
Informed consent: Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants involved in the
study. Kybernetes
Data availability: The data is available only upon reasonable request to the authors. © Emerald Publishing Limited
0368-492X
Conflict of interest: The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest. DOI 10.1108/K-02-2022-0231
K work, and telework has become part of many workers’ routines. In addition, the way through
which organizations managed the transition from face-to-face work to remote work, and how
they have provided this experience to their workers, is largely due to their culture and
organizational values (Blattner et al., 2021; ILO, 2020; Krajcs
ak and Koz
ak, 2022).
Organizational culture is like software that allows individuals to function as hardware
(Hofstede, 2009). There is a dynamic relationship between the culture and workers,
influencing individual (Krajcs
ak and Koz
ak, 2022) and organizational behavior (Hartnell
et al., 2011), happiness (Januwarsono, 2015) and satisfaction (Kwon and Jeon, 2020).
Telework involves physical and cognitive changes in the way workers perform their
work, which may impact their well-being (Robertson and Moiser, 2020; Sardeshmukh et al.,
2012). However, the empirical literature is not consensual; there are studies demonstrating the
benefits of teleworking for well-being, arguing that it facilitates the integration of paid work
and family (Anderson et al., 2015), and others showing that it may harm workers’ well-being
because of the negative intrusions and interruptions (e.g. a baby crying on the ground) on
work and the excessive workload inherent to teleworking (e.g. Song and Gao, 2020). For
instance, Song and Gao (2020) demonstrated that telework on weekdays was associated with
more stress. On the opposite, Anderson et al. (2015) showed that telework negatively
influenced the experience of negative emotions, such as stress and anxiety.
To further investigate whether teleworking is associated with higher or lower happiness,
this study evaluates the role of organizational culture in this relationship. Organizational
culture may be a key-facilitating or a harmful one to implement telework, as it has been shown
to influence how individuals act and behave at and toward work (Krajcs
ak and Koz
ak, 2022).
Despite that, so far, no studies explored how organizational culture may shape the
relationship between the workers’ attitudes toward telework and happiness. As such, this
study aimed to contribute to a better understanding of the role of organizational culture in the
implementation of telework and its impact on workers’ happiness, conceiving it as a
moderator between attitudes toward telework and happiness.
This study is relevant as the current context of the pandemic crisis emphasizes the
importance of this topic, not only for applied purposes but also for individual consequences,
namely, workers’ happiness in a telework situation. Thus, this study may represent a
starting point for organizations that search for guidance and guidelines based on empirical
evidence.

Theoretical framework
Telework
Despite telework being considered a recent phenomenon, the solidification of this concept
took place in the 1970s, during the oil crisis. It was in this context that Nilles (1975) defined the
concept of telecommuting, and later the concept of telework. The term telecommuting
emerged from the idea of transferring work to workers, rather than transferring them to the
workplace, to reduce energy consumption and the traffic problems that characterized that era
(Allen et al., 2015). In other words, telework aimed to replace the transport of the worker by
telecommunication, through a network of components, allowing them to work in nearby
offices instead of traveling long distances to the headquarters (Nilles, 1975). According to
Kurland and Bailey (1999), the replacement of travel to the workplace by information and
communication technologies led to several alternative forms of work that, together, formed
the concept of telework. Allen et al. (2015) mentioned that the concept of telework is used to
connote a broader form of telecommuting, allowing individuals to perform their work tasks
from a variety of alternative locations (e.g. from home or a library). There are several terms
used to express the concept of telework, an example of which is remote work. However, the
main idea is the same: work can be done anywhere and not just in one place (Baruch, 2000).
Thus, telework is an organizational working arrangement, which promotes flexibility The moderating
regarding the place and working hours (Steil and Barcia, 2001). role of
Telework has the following characteristics: (1) the work activity is carried out at a
distance, (2) the results of the tasks performed are controlled and (3) the tasks are carried out
organizational
through computer and telecommunications equipment (Cavalcante et al., 2019). Plus, telework culture
includes four spatial-characteristics (Kurland and Bailey, 1999): (1) home-based telework
(refers to employees who work from home through the use of computer and communication
systems linked to the office, such as e-mail, fax or computers connected to company servers);
(2) satellite centers (offices shared only by employees of a single company); (3) telecenters
(they are shared by employees from one or more organizations; and (4) mobile work (mobile
work; it is intended for work carried out, anywhere, using a mobile device).
According to Eurostat (2018), the number of teleworkers in the European Union has
increased over the years, registering a percentage of 7.7% in 2008 and 9.6% in 2017. As a
result of the COVID-19 pandemic crisis, workers who were forced to implement telework as a
measure to reduce the spread of the virus has significantly increased (Belzunegui-Eraso and
Erro-Garc
es, 2020). Thus, organizations were faced with a new model of work. Furthermore,
many organizations had no previous experience of it, which could lead to a gap in clarity,
supervision, and management of the tasks that workers needed to perform (ILO, 2020). The
Eurofound report (2020) showed that, in the European Union, almost 40% of workers were
carrying out their work, through telework.

The relationship between telework and happiness

The literature has considered the concept of happiness as a complex term since it appears
associated with two major theoretical perspectives: hedonism and eudaimonism
(Waterman, 1993).
Eudaimonism has been considered by several authors (e.g. Ryff, 1989) as a form of
happiness that goes beyond obtaining pleasure alone and implies the development of the self
as a way to obtain happiness. For Ryan and Deci (2001) the eudaimonic perspective focuses
on meaning and self-fulfillment, defining well-being through the degree to which a person is
fully functioning. According to Waterman et al. (2008), “eudaimonia” refers to the feelings
that occur when individuals move towards self-fulfillment to develop their potential and
assign purpose to their lives.
On the other hand, the hedonic approach is the one that tends to be explored in work
settings (Junça-Silva et al., 2021). The hedonic perspective emphasizes the subjective nature of
happiness, considering individuals themselves as the final “judges” of this experience (Myers
and Diener, 1995). According to Ryan and Deci (2001), the prevailing view of hedonism
operates on the premise that well-being concerns the experience of pleasure versus pain –
subjective well-being.
Subjective well-being was defined by Diener, in 1984, who suggested that it is composed of
two components: (1) affective (higher frequency of positive emotions, over negative ones), and
(2) cognitive (evaluation that the individual makes about his/her life). Accordingly, a happy
individual is the one who makes a positive evaluation of life and experiences positive
emotions more often than negative ones (Junça-Silva et al., 2021). Also, according to Diener
(2000), individuals are happy when: (1) they often experience more positive than negative
emotions; (2) are involved in interesting activities; (3) experience more pleasure than pain;
and, (4) are overall satisfied with their lives.
Thus, based on a more pragmatic view, Diener (1984) showed that virtually all scientific
approaches to happiness converge around three distinct phenomena. First, happiness is
considered a subjective experience. Lyubomirsky and Lepper (1999) highlighted the
importance of subjectivity in the study of happiness, arguing that this is the only way to
K identify individuals who consider themselves happy, despite the adversities of life, and
people who consider themselves unhappy, even if by certain obstacles and/or difficulties.
Second, happiness includes both the presence of positive emotions and the absence of
negative emotions (Argyle, 1987; Diener and Larsen, 1993; Michalos, 1985; Warr, 1990). Third,
happiness constitutes a global judgment. That is, it involves the judgments of individuals
themselves regarding the positive and negative aspects of their lives (Wright, 2005).
Telework appears to be related to well-being (Tavares, 2017), however, the empirical
literature is far from being consensual, as some researchers argue that working from home
harm workers’ well-being (e.g. Song and Gao, 2020), whereas others have shown that it is
associated to increased levels of well-being (e.g. Azarbouyeh and Naini, 2014). For instance,
blending personal and professional life increases negotiation in families (Baines and Gelder,
2003) and leads to a higher level of stress (Sullivan, 2012; Weinert et al., 2015) and negative
emotions (Song and Gao, 2020).
Contradicting evidence, however, indicates that telework allows workers to keep
resources (e.g. emotional and physical energy), due to time-saving in commuting, allowing
greater flexibility to reallocate time in other daily activities, that may, in turn, improve their
satisfaction and happiness (S
anchez et al., 2007). In addition, telework allows the employee to
acquire greater flexibility in terms of workplace and hours, as well as greater autonomy for
tasks and time management, giving more time to the family and promoting their quality of
life (Tavares, 2017). This has been shown empirically; for instance, Azarbouyeh and Naini
(2014) showed that telework ameliorates quality of life by allowing workers to take work-
family dual roles simultaneously (e.g. Azarbouyeh and Naini, 2014). Uresha (2020)
demonstrated a positive and significant relationship between telecommuting, happiness
and work-life balance. According to Ollo-L
opez et al. (2020), telework can be seen as a family-
friendly practice that enables workers to balance work and family life, improving positive
affect and life satisfaction. Indeed, telework can help accommodate the preferences and needs
of the younger workers by providing them with time and location flexibility that can facilitate
a better work-life balance (Bae and Kim, 2016; Kwon and Jeon, 2020). This was also
demonstrated in the study of Aziz-Ur-Rehman and Siddiqui (2019), who revealed that
telework was positively related to the balance between professional and personal life which
accounted for higher levels of subjective well-being.
Additionally, Ollo-L
opez et al. (2020) also evidenced that the autonomy and flexibility
prompted by working from home influenced how individuals perceived teleworking which
positively predicted their happiness. Telework was also associated with increased
productivity and performance (Baruch, 2000), job satisfaction (Igbaria and Guimares,
1999), and at the same time decreased work-related stressors. A study by Anderson et al.
(2015) showed that telework can reduce the experience of negative emotions such as stress
and anxiety. The results also revealed that work-related positive affective well-being was
higher on days when individuals were telecommuting compared to days when they were in
the office. Similarly, Kossek et al. (2006) showed that workers who were in telework reported
higher levels of well-being when compared to workers in face-to-face work.

The moderating role of organizational culture

Organizational culture was recognized as a factor that can hinder or facilitate the
management of individuals and work (Neves, 1996). It enables the focus of attention to
symbolic aspects within organizations, as well as to the attribution of meaning by agents to
different moments of organizational “life” (Sarmento, 1994).
According to Schein (1990, p. 111), culture can be defined as “a pattern of basic
assumptions, invented, discovered, or developed by a given group, as it learns to deal with its
problems of external adaptation and internal integration, which has worked well enough to
be considered valid and, therefore, should be taught to new members as the correct way to The moderating
perceive, think, and feel about these problems.” In this sense, organizational culture can be role of
understood as a system of values that sustains the activity of an organization’s members
(Vanderberghe and Peir
o, 1999).
organizational
Hofstede et al. (2005) used the analogy of an operating system to explain the functioning of culture
culture. This is like mental software, collective programming of the mind that makes it
possible to distinguish the members of a group from others. Cultural programming appears
at the beginning of human development and continues throughout the life of individuals, with
the absorption of information and patterns that constitute the social environment in which
they are inserted. Hofstede (2011) mentioned that culture, as a collective programming of the
mind, manifests itself in four levels: symbols, heroes, rituals and values. Symbols constitute
the most superficial layer of culture and represent words, gestures, images or objects that
convey a particular meaning, being recognized only by those who share the same culture.
Heroes are people who have highly valued characteristics in a given culture, and therefore
serve as behavioral models (e.g. founders of an organization often become cultural heroes).
Rituals refer to collective activities (e.g. ways of greeting, social ceremonies, etc.) to achieve
desired ends, but are considered essential within the culture. Values, on the other hand,
represent the deepest layer, being perceived as the core of culture (Hofstede, 2011). Founders
and leaders create the symbols, heroes, and rituals that together constitute the daily practices
of organizational members (Hofstede, 1994). As such, they are visible to an outside observer.
However, their cultural significance is not necessarily visible and resides in the way these
practices are interpreted by their members (Hofstede, 2011).
Quinn’s competing values model of organizational culture was developed by Quinn and
Rohrbaugh (1981, 1983) and is one of the reference models (Have et al., 2003). It is represented
by two axes: the horizontal axis refers to internal orientation vs the external orientation. The
internal orientation is focused on the development of human resources and the preservation
of a stable and cooperative work environment, while the external orientation places emphasis
on the performance of activities that aim to grow and acquire resources. The vertical axis
represents flexibility vs control. Flexibility emphasizes the importance of the individual
initiative, speed and organizational adaptability, while control emphasizes cooperation
between functions (Neves and Lopes, 2000). The intersection of these axes gives rise to four
quadrants, i.e. four types of cultures: clan (culture of support), adhocracy (culture of
innovation), hierarchical (culture of rules) and market (culture of goals). Each one is supported
by different theoretical models: the human relations model, the open systems model, the
internal processes model and the rational goals model (Quinn and Rohrbaugh, 1981, 1983). In
this way, each quadrant represents basic assumptions, orientations and values that
characterize an organizational culture (Cameron and Quinn, 1999).
First, the upper left quadrant reflects the clan culture. It emphasizes support, its
orientation is towards flexibility and to the internal (Neves and Lopes, 2000) and is
characterized by shared values and goals, participation, cohesion, human development sense
of belonging and trust. The leaders of an organization, with a clan culture, tend to be
supportive, considerate, participatory and emphasize interaction through teamwork (Quinn
et al., 2011). The support culture mirrors the values of the human relations model, which
emphasizes human development based on cohesion, commitment, morality (Quinn and
Rohrbaugh, 1983), employee motivation and decentralization of decisions (Neves and
Lopes, 2000).
Second, the upper right quadrant is defined by the axes of flexibility and external
orientation, reflecting the adhocracy culture. It is characterized “by the ability to take
adequate measures to face external pressures and to make behaviors and internal working
processes more flexible” (Neves and Lopes, 2000, p. 42). This culture is supported by the open
systems model, which emphasizes flexibility and speed as important norms to promote
K growth and the acquisition of resources for the organization (Quinn and Rohrbaugh, 1983).
These cultures are characterized by innovation and emphasize values of growth, speed,
acquisition of resources, creativity, adaptation, and responses to the external environment
(Quinn et al., 2011). Furthermore, successful leaders are viewed as innovators, entrepreneurs
and visionary.
Third, the lower left quadrant shows the hierarchical culture, supported by the model of
internal processes which emphasizes internal stability and control of processes within the
organization, through information management and internal communication (Quinn and
Rohrbaugh, 1983). This culture is characterized by the importance of implicit and explicit
control systems (Neves and Lopes, 2000), in which hierarchy, formalization, structuring,
centralization, uniformity and internal efficiency prevail (Quinn et al., 2011). Therefore,
successful leaders are organizers, coordinators and monitors.
Fourth, the lower left quadrant reflects the market culture that is defined by the axes of
control and external guidance. It is supported by the rational goals model which suggests
planning and achieving goals as the main guidelines to promote productivity and efficiency
(Quinn and Rohrbaugh, 1983). In this sense, values of productivity, competitiveness,
performance, efficiency, maximization of results and achievement of pre-defined objectives
stand out (Neves and Lopes, 2000). Successful leaders are hard-driving, competitors and
producers.
According to Quinn and Spreitzer (1991), organizations are not characterized only by a
single type of culture, on the contrary, it is expected that they reflect the simultaneity of all.
However, it is possible to identify the predominance of one type of culture, with a higher
intensity than the others. In this sense, the four cultures must be understood as ideal
representations, which define the model of competing values and integrate the dynamics and
complexity inherent to the organization in different degrees and emphases.
The way individuals perceive organizational culture influences their health, well-being
and quality of life at work (Kane-Urrabanzo, 2006). Indeed, organizational culture may be a
condition through which attitudes toward telework influence happiness. For instance,
Krajcs
ak and Koz
ak (2022) demonstrated that the organizational culture determines the
effects of teleworking on organizational citizenship behaviors, suggesting that the best
organizational culture to implement telework was the market culture. Ficarra et al. (2020)
showed that organizational culture was a condition that influenced happiness. Similarly, Lok
and Crawford (2004) showed that organizational culture and leadership styles were
moderators of the relation between the job context and individuals’ happiness and
commitment at work. Using the competing values model, several studies revealed that
cultures with a greater orientation towards group values, human relationships, support and
human development facilitated job satisfaction, involvement and empowerment (Goodman
et al., 2001; Quinn and Spreitzer, 1991) in adverse times. Olynick and Li (2020) showed that
individuals who are working in a supportive culture reported low levels of stress and high
levels of productivity, followed by those working in an adhocracy, hierarchical and, finally,
market cultures.
Several authors have argued that telework requires a change in organizational culture, for
its respective success (Grant et al., 2018). Accordingly, an organizational culture that is open,
participatory, focused on people and results, with a low emphasis on hierarchy and
characterized by a certain level of innovation and management based on goals, represents a
greater likelihood of success in the implementation of this model of work (Hamilton, 2002).
Harrington and Santiago (2006) demonstrated that telework is easier to be implemented by
organizations with a more rational culture (e.g. values results and goals) and less bureaucratic
(hierarchy). Standen’s (2000) studies revealed that organizations, characterized by a culture
with a low orientation for control, were more likely to successfully implement telework
practices. Thus, given the symbolic nature of the relationship between worker and employer,
organizational culture can function as a moderating variable in the relationship between The moderating
teleworking and individual happiness. As such, based on the theoretical framework of the role of
organizational culture (Quinn and Spreitzer, 1991) and in the empirical work mentioned
before (e.g. Krajcs
ak and Koz
ak, 2022; Lok and Crawford, 2004), we expect that (Figure 1):
organizational
culture
H1a. Clan culture moderates the relationship between attitudes toward telework and
happiness, in such a way that the relationship becomes stronger in a clan
organizational culture.
H1b. Adhocratic culture moderates the relationship between attitudes toward telework
and happiness, in such a way that the relationship becomes stronger in
organizational culture with a stronger orientation for adhocracy.
H1c. Hierarchical culture moderates the relationship between attitudes toward telework
and happiness, in such a way that the relationship becomes stronger in
organizational culture with a stronger orientation for hierarchy.
H1d. Market culture moderates the relationship between attitudes toward telework and
happiness, in such a way that the relationship becomes weaker in organizational
culture with a stronger orientation for the market.

Method
Participants and procedure
Overall, 265 teleworkers from administrative functions (e.g. human resources technicians and
managers) participated in the study, of which 71% were women. The mean age was
31.23 years old (SD 5 12.28). The majority did not have children (72%) and were single (62
versus 38% of married individuals). Most participants had a higher education degree (88
versus 12% who had the high school complete), were full-time employees (90.6%) with a
regular fixed work schedule (48.7%) followed by those who had a flexible work schedule
(46%). The majority reported working, on average, between 40 and 49 h (56.2%) per week.
Furthermore, 67.2% were in full-time telework and 32.8% reported a hybrid model of
telework.
We used a non-probabilistic convenience sample to collect the data. We sent emails to
participants from our social and professional networks to participate in a study about “telework
and quality of life”. After agreeing with their participation, they signed informed consent and
were clarified regarding the main goals of the study and about the anonymity and
confidentiality of their responses. We also sent them the hyperlink to the survey: https://docs.
google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeTklVOHk61tkFrY0Wkr1tKwQcYdia0-zD-467nMAq9-
aCj6g/closedform. We collected data between January and April of 2021. From the 300 emails
sent, we obtained 265 valid responses (response rate: 88%).

Measures
To measure attitudes toward telework we used the E-Work Life Scale (EWLS; Grant et al.,
2018). It includes 17 items that assess four dimensions: work-life interference (e.g. “I feel that

Organizational culture
Figure 1.
The hypothesized
Attitudes toward moderating model
telework Happiness
K the demands of work are much greater when I am teleworking”); effectiveness/productivity
(e.g. “When I am telecommuting, I am more effective in achieving my goals and results”);
organizational trust (e.g. “My company trains me to develop teleworking skills and
behaviors”) and flexibility (e.g. “When I am teleworking, my supervisor, gives me full
autonomy so that I can decide how and when I finish my work”). Responses were given on a 5-
point Likert scale ranging from (1) Strongly Disagree to (5) Strongly Agree.
Happiness was measured through the 4-item Subjective Happiness Scale (Lyubomirsky
and Lepper, 1999) (e.g. “In general, you consider yourself a person” or “Some people are
generally very happy. They enjoy life regardless of what happens except most of everything.
To what extent does this characterization describe you?”). Responses were given on a 5-point
Likert scale ranging from: (1) Not very happy to (5) Very happy; and from (1) Not at all and (5)
Entirely.
Organizational culture was measured using the short version of the FOCUS (Van Muijen,
1999). This assessed individuals’ perception of organizational values through 16 items
organized in four dimensions: clan culture (e.g. “mutual understanding”); adhocracy culture
(e.g. “taking risks”), hierarchical culture (e.g. “following rules”) and market culture (e.g.
“emphasis on task accomplishment”). Responses were given on a 5-point Likert scale ranging
from (1) Never to (5) Always.

Data analyses
First, through SPSS 27, we calculated the internal consistencies, the descriptive analyzes and
the correlations. Then, to test H1a–H1d, four moderation analyzes were carried out, using
model 1 of the macro-PROCESS (Hayes, 2018). The products (moderations) were centered on
their mean value, and the bootstrapping method was used (5,000 times) to obtain confidence
intervals (CIs). Moreover, this macro has been recognized as an added value because it allows
testing even with smaller samples (Gardner et al., 2012). Hence, PROCESS macro is suitable to
test the hypotheses in this study.

Results
Descriptive statistics
Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics, the correlations and the reliability of the variables.

Hypotheses testing
H1a expected that the clan culture would moderate the relationship between attitudes toward
telework and happiness, such that this relationship would be stronger for higher levels of clan
culture. The moderation analysis revealed a non-significant interaction effect between clan
culture and attitudes toward telework (B 5 0.16, β 5 0.09, ΔR2 5 0.01, p 5 0.08). However,

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6
1
1. Attitudes telework 3.49 0.52 (0.76)
2. Happiness 3.721 0.74 0.17** (0.80)
3. Clan culture 3.901 0.86 0.29** 0.17** (0.90)
1
Table 1. 4. Hierarchical culture 3.70 0.82 0.21** 0.09 0.46** (0.84)
Means, standard 5. Market culture 3.891 0.69 0.20** 0.18** 0.66** 0.62** (0.72)
deviations, correlations 6. Adhocracy culture 3.531 0.73 0.35** 0.17** 0.71** 0.46** 0.63** (0.65)
and Cronbach alphas of Note(s): **N 5 265. P < 0.01
1
the variables Scale from 1 to 5. Cronbach alphas are between brackets
attitudes to telework, and clan culture showed a statistically significant direct relationship to The moderating
happiness (B 5 0.22, β 5 0.09, p < 0.01; B 5 0.11, β 5 0.05, p < 0.05, respectively). Thus, H1a role of
was not supported (Table 2).
H1b assumed that the adhocracy culture would moderate the relationship between
organizational
attitudes toward telework and happiness, such that this relationship would be stronger for culture
higher levels of adhocracy cultures. The moderation analysis revealed a non-significant
interaction effect between adhocracy culture and attitudes toward telework (B 5 0.08,
β 5 0.11, ΔR2 5 0.00, p > 0.05), but this showed a statistically significant relationship to
happiness (B 5 0.20, β 5 0.09, p < 0.05). Adhocracy culture was not significantly related to
happiness (B 5 0.12, β 5 0.06, p > 0.05). As such, H1b was not supported.
H1c assumed that the hierarchical culture would moderate the relationship between
attitudes toward telework and happiness, such that this relationship would be weaker for
higher levels of a hierarchical culture. The moderation analysis revealed a non-significant
interaction effect between hierarchical culture and attitudes toward telework (B 5 0.09,
β 5 0.09, ΔR2 5 0.00, p > 0.05). Only attitudes toward telework showed a statistically
significant direct relationship to happiness (B 5 0.24, β 5 0.09, p < 0.01). The hierarchical
culture was not significantly related to happiness (B 5 0.05, β 5 0.05, p > 0.05). Thus, H1c did
not receive support.
H1d assumed that the market culture would moderate the relationship between attitudes
toward telework and happiness, such that this would be is stronger for higher levels of
market culture. The moderation analysis revealed a significant interaction effect between the
market culture and attitudes toward telework (B 5 0.23, β 5 0.10, ΔR2 5 0.02, p < 0.05). Plus,
attitudes toward telework and the market culture showed a statistically significant direct
relationship to happiness (B 5 0.24, β 5 0.09, p < 0.01; B 5 0.17, β 5 0.07, p < 0.01,
respectively). The significant interaction indicated that the effect of attitudes toward telework
on happiness varies according to the different levels of the moderating variable, in this case,
the market culture. Analyzing the slopes, we found that the moderation exists when the
market culture showed higher (B 5 0.39, β 5 0.12, p < 0.01, CI 95% [0.15, 0.64]) and mean
values (B 5 0.24, β 5 0.09, p < 0.01, CI 95% [0.06, 0.41]). That is, as the market culture

Happiness

Attitudes toward telework 0.22** CI95% [0.04, 0.40]

Clan culture 0.11** CI95% [0.01, 0.22]
Attitudes toward telework*Clan culture 0.16 CI95% [ 0.02, 0.33]
R2 5 0.06 F (3, 261) 5 5.24, p 5 0.00, ΔR2 5 0.01, p 5 0.08
Attitudes toward telework 0.24** CI95% [0.07, 0.42]
Market culture 0.17* CI95% [0.04, 0.30]
Attitudes toward telework *Market culture 0.23* CI95% [0.02, 0.43]
R2 5 0.07 F (3, 261) 5 6.42, p 5 0.00, ΔR2 5 0.02, p 5 0.02
Attitudes toward telework 0.20* CI95% [0.01, 0.38]
Adhocratic culture 0.12 CI95% [ 0.01, 0.25]
Attitudes toward telework *Adhocratic culture 0.08 CI95% [ 0.14, 0.28]
R2 5 0.04 F (3, 261) 5 4.00, p 5 0.00, ΔR2 5 0.00, p 5 0.47 Table 2.
Attitudes toward telework 0.24** CI95% [0.06, 0.42] The moderating role of
Hierarchical culture 0.05 CI95% [ 0.06, 0.16] organizational culture
Attitudes toward telework *Hierarchical culture 0.09 CI95% [ 0.09, 0.27] on the relationship
between attitudes
R2 5 0.04 F (3, 261) 5 3.25, p 5 0.02, ΔR2 5 0.00, p 5 0.32 toward telework and
Note(s): N 5 265; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01 happiness
K increased, the relationship between attitudes toward telework and happiness became
stronger. However, it was no longer significant when the market culture was lower (B 5 0.09,
β 5 0.10, p > 0.05, CI 95% [ 0.11, 0.28]) (Figure 2). Thus, H1d was supported.

Discussion
In a context marked by the rapid consolidation of telework as a flexible model of work,
because of the COVID-19 pandemic, this study explores the challenges that organizations
face, in terms of organizational culture, regarding teleworkers’ happiness. Specifically, this
study tests the moderating role of organizational culture in the relationship between attitudes
toward telework and happiness.
The results show that only the market culture moderates the relationship between
attitudes toward telework and happiness. This relationship is stronger when there is a high
market organizational culture. In this sense, employees are happier in telework, when they are
inserted in a dominant organizational culture focused on goals and results. Empirical studies
showed that organizations characterized by a goal-setting approach and based on results are
likely to successfully implement telework (e.g. Standen, 2000). For instance, Krajcs
ak and
Koz
ak (2022) showed that the best organizational culture to implement telework was the
market culture. The authors showed that when the dominant culture was the market one,
workers had slight changes in their behavior while working from home, whereas in
organizations with a dominant clan culture, there were decreases in employers’
conscientiousness; and organizations with a dominant hierarchy culture evidenced more
negative reactions to telework and consequently, negative behaviors arouse. Similarly, Kwon
and Jeon (2020) showed that a performance-oriented culture (with clear and objective goals),
and a committed leader significantly affected teleworker satisfaction with telework
programs. In this way, a culture focused on goals can facilitate the implementation of
telework, as it is focused on planning and goal achievement as the main guidelines to promote
success and efficiency. In turn, the dominance of this type of culture in a remote work
situation can trigger positive and significant relationships with happiness, because this type

OBJ
4.10
–0.69
0.00
0.69
4.00 Interpolation Line

3.90
SHS

3.80

3.70

Figure 2. 3.60
The interaction
between the market
culture on the relation
between attitudes 3.50
toward telework and –0.50 –0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50
happiness
EWLS
of culture emphasizes performance and efficiency values which may improve teleworkers’ The moderating
commitment to their work, and as such improve their overall satisfaction. The happy- role of
productive thesis argues that happy workers are more productive (e.g. Wright and Staw,
1999). This idea is supported by diverse empirical studies. For instance, Garc
ıa-Buades et al.
organizational
(2020) showed the existence of a positive relationship between happiness and productivity. culture
Plus, the ILO report (2020) emphasized that the most useful strategy to promote happier
teleworkers is to manage work based on results, keeping the workload at manageable levels
and setting clear goals regarding the specific results to be achieved. Thus, the presence of a
market culture can facilitate the balance between work and non-work domains, which,
influences teleworkers’ happiness.
The remaining hypotheses are not supported. Regarding the clan culture, although it does
not moderate the link between attitudes toward telework and happiness, it significantly
predicts workers’ happiness. This means that the dominance of this type of culture can
positively influence happiness, as it emphasizes values of trust, cohesion, participation and
teamwork. In this sense, both the clan culture and the market one plays a crucial role in
maximizing happiness, however only the market culture appears to be a boundary condition
needed to successfully implement telework. Thus, organizations that promote pleasant work
environments, delegate tasks, share goals, improve communication channels, encourage
teamwork, recognize the effort of each one, create conditions for workers to feel happy even in
other working conditions, such as telework. The fact that it does not moderate the
relationship between attitudes toward telework and happiness indicates that the participants
appear to not value this type of culture in telework as much as they envision goals. Hence, a
dominant clan culture despite positively influencing workers’ happiness, does not intensify
the relationship between attitudes to telework and workers’ happiness. However, these are
values that end up being implicit, because, when defining goals, leaders end up transmitting
trust and support.
Regarding the adhocratic culture, although this culture emphasizes important aspects
for telework (e.g. flexibility, speed of response, adaptability, creativity), it does not influence
the relationship between attitudes toward telework and happiness. It is indeed important to
have organizational innovation in this model of work, however, considering the time of data
collection, during the pandemic crisis, maybe innovation is not so important to facilitate
happiness in telework settings, in this specific period. This period was characterized by a
huge feeling of uncertainty (Junça-Silva and Silva, 2022) and stress (Taylor et al., 2021)
which may thereby have affected how workers perceive the telework and its rapid
implementation. As such, a dominant adhocratic culture, which emphasizes adaptability or
innovation) may not be considered important enough both for work and for happiness in
this phase.
Finally, the hierarchical culture does not moderate or influence happiness. This means
that a culture that emphasizes control, hierarchy and fragmentation does not predict
happiness which might be understood due to the uncertain times in which individuals are
living (Junça-Silva and Silva, 2022). A recent study conducted by Krajcs
ak and Koz
ak
(2022) also evidenced that a dominant hierarchy culture created more negative reactions
to telework decreasing consciousness, civic virtues and organizational citizenship
behaviors.
Overall, we conclude that a goal-setting approach and management that emphasizes
results seems to be the best strategy in the transition from face-to-face to telework. This result
is in line with Harrington and Santiago (2006) who showed that telework will be easily
implemented by organizations with a more rational culture (e.g. goals) and less bureaucratic
(hierarchical), and with Krajcs
ak and Koz
ak (2022) who also evidenced that the culture more
prone to implement telework was the market one as it was associated to more organizational
citizenship behaviors, consciousness, courtesy and civic virtues.
K Limitations and future directions
This study presents some limitations. First, the small sample size (N 5 265) and, being
composed mostly of women (71.3%), limits the generalization of the results, considering that
a larger size of participants would benefit this kind of study, in the future. Second, another
factor that may be at the origin of these results is the fact that the study was carried out in the
mandatory confinement that led to the implementation of mandatory telework. In addition, it
was framed in a context where the emotional and social vulnerability was higher. Third, data
is based on self-reported measures which may have some bias, derived from random
responses, the response style and, also responses according to what is “socially desirable”. In
the future, research would invest in more complex data collection, which allows for a deeper
understanding of these topics, such as a longitudinal study. At last, we did not measure the
length of time of experienced telework, which might be interesting to consider in future
studies.
Future studies should deepen the understanding of the role of organizational culture on
happiness, in the context of telework, in a less turbulent period. As mentioned before, the
study was applied in a situation where telework was imposed suddenly and mandatory,
which leads us to believe that many organizations were not prepared for this organizational
change. In this way, it will be important that, in the future, these issues are explored based on
a comparison between the current pandemic and a post-pandemic context. Thus, it will be
possible to analyze the transition of organizational culture patterns and the implications for
happiness.
The adaptation of telework and organizational culture is done through leaders and
managers. Thus, it will be worthy to explore the role of leadership in this context as the
leader’s behavior and style can have a positive impact on the implementation of this flexible
work regime.
Future studies would invest in the study of the mediating variables in the relationship
between telework, culture and happiness, such as the person-organization fit. Based on the
literature (e.g. Harrington and Ruppel, 1999; Tavares, 2017) individual skills are highlighted
as a significant factor for telework. Therefore, a study that considers the person-organization-
fit or the role of skills would be relevant to develop strategies and tools that help teleworkers.
It will also be important to extend the study of happiness at work to different spheres of an
individual’s life (e.g. family dynamics, health, etc.). The issue of happiness is a key factor that
organizations should consider, as it is a profitable factor, insofar as happier people tend to
have proactive behavior, are more efficient, motivated, and productive and, therefore,
generate more results for organizations. Thus, future studies should delve deeply into this
topic, namely, regarding the study of other organizational practices aimed to promote
happiness, oriented to create positive experiences at work, especially in a remote work
situation. Moreover, another relevant question would be to explore and understand how
happy are those who work remotely after a certain period, for instance, after 1–3 years, 3–
5 years, or more than 5 years. On the other hand, further studies could be carried out in
the field of social isolation, provided by this work regime, more specifically, in the relationship
that this factor may have on the happiness of teleworkers, as well as strategies and initiatives
to minimize it.

Practical implications
The results show that a market culture intensifies the positive effects of attitudes toward
telework on happiness. Thus, from a practical point of view, managers should stimulate
communication with teleworkers, to alleviate the feelings of social isolation, exclusion and
distance from the organization. In general, the individual perception of telework should be
considered by any organization when implementing telework. From a change management
perspective, organizations adopting telework should make this transition prudently, for The moderating
instance, starting with a diagnosis to identify which individuals are motivated to telework role of
and those who are not in favor of it. Subsequently, they should begin to implement this work
model, with the adoption of the hybrid model (on-site and telework), to reconcile the
organizational
preferences of all individuals. culture
Second, it appears that telework is a way of sustaining happiness. In this sense, telework
seems to be relevant for organizations and may constitute a competitive advantage. Thus, in
practical terms, organizations benefit from this positive relationship, as healthy and happy
employees are the key to success (Wright and Staw, 1999). To this end, it is essential that
organizations consider telework as a positive point and, at the same time, analyze and
evaluate their policies and strategies, considering the set of factors for successful
implementation and results in maximization. Indeed, telework can change the role that
work plays in everyday life, simultaneously increasing the productivity and competitiveness
of organizations.
Third, the moderating role of the market culture on the positive relationship between
telework and happiness demonstrates that through a goal-setting approach individuals feel
happier. In practical terms, it seems relevant that organizations emphasize this strategy when
implementing telework. Stimulating an environment that values results, planning and goal
achievement, is an environment in which employees tend to feel happier, and return with
results, productivity and efficiency, contributing to the achievement of organizational
success in the long run.
According to the present study, it is also possible to conclude that the clan culture
positively influences well-being. In this sense, it seems pertinent to invest in the creation of an
organizational context conducive to relationships of trust and support between workers and
their managers, for example, through organizational practices that encourage open and two-
way communication, the inclusion of weekly/fortnightly meetings about work, outputs and
solutions to potential problems, and the creation of informal moments conducive to sharing
experiences between employees.

Conclusions
In sum, this study clarifies the importance of organizational characteristics, such as the
organizational culture, in the adoption of telework to maximize workers’ happiness. In
particular, this study demonstrates that a dominant market culture (with a clear emphasis on
a goal-setting approach) facilitates the happiness for individuals in telework, in particular in
periods marked by uncertainty, as the VUCA (volatility, uncertainty, complexity and
ambiguity) world is characterized. Furthermore, a dominant clan culture can also be an added
value for workers’ happiness because values such as perceived support may assist
teleworkers to easily adapt to this new reality. At last, these connections between the
variables altogether should be deepened explored to a better understanding of these relations.

References
Allen, T.D., Golden, T.D. and Shockley, K.M. (2015), “How effective is telecommuting? Assessing the
status of our scientific findings”, Psychological Science in the Public Interest, Vol. 16 No. 2,
pp. 40-68.
Anderson, A.J., Kaplan, S.A. and Vega, R.P. (2015), “The impact of telework on emotional experience:
when, and for whom, does telework improve daily affective well-being?”, European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 882-897, doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2014.
966086.
Argyle, M. (1987), The Experience of Happiness, Methuen, London.
K Azarbouyeh, A. and Naini, S. (2014), “A study on the effect of teleworking on quality of work life”,
Management Science Letters, Vol. 4 No. 6, pp. 1063-1068.
Aziz-Ur-Rehman, M. and Siddiqui, D.A. (2019), “Relationship between flexible working arrangements
and job satisfaction mediated by work-life balance: evidence from public sector universities
employees of Pakistan”, International Journal of Human Resource Studies, Vol. 10
No. 1, pp. 1-38.
Bae, K.B. and Kim, D. (2016), “The impact of decoupling of telework on job satisfaction in US federal
agencies: does gender matter?”, The American Review of Public Administration, Vol. 46 No. 3,
pp. 356-371, doi: 10.1177/0275074016637183.
Baines, S. and Gelder, U. (2003), “What is family friendly about the workplace in the home? The case
of self-employed parents and their children”, New Technology, Work and Employment, Vol. 18
No. 3, pp. 223-234, doi: 10.1111/1468-005X.00123.
Baruch, Y. (2000), “Teleworking: benefits and pitfalls as perceived by professionals and managers”,
New Technology, Work and Employment, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 34-49.
Belzunegui-Eraso, A. and Erro-Garc
es, A. (2020), “Teleworking in the context of the covid-19 crisis”,
Sustainability, Vol. 12 No. 9, p. 3662.
Blattner, J.F., Karmia, W.P. and Walter, T.J. (2021), “How culture, leadership and engagement helped a
small business survive during the pandemic”, Strategic HR Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 88-93, doi:
10.1108/SHR-11-2020-0096.
Cameron, K.S. and Quinn, R.E. (1999), Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture. Based on the
Competing Values Framework, Addison Wesley Longman, Inc, MA.
Cavalcante, J., Neto, J. and Ferreira, F. (2019), “A tecnol
ogica, o teletrabalho e a reforma trabalhista”,
Revista eletr^onica [do] Tribunal Regional do Trabalho da 9a Regi~ao, Vol. 8, pp. 112-124.
Diener, E. (1984), “Subjective well-being”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 95 No. 3, pp. 542-575.
Diener, E. (2000), “Subjective well-being: the science of happiness and a proposal for a national index”,
American Psychologist, Vol. 55 No. 1, p. 34.
Diener, E. and Larsen, R.J. (1993), “The subjective experience of emotional well-being: stability in
global assessment of emotion”, in Lewis, M. and Haviland, J.M. (Eds), Handbook of Emotions,
Guilford Press, New York, pp. 405-415.
Eurofound (2020), Living, Working and COVID-19, COVID-19 Series, Publications Office of the
European Union, Luxemburgo.
Eurostat (2018), “Working from home in the EU”, available at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/
products-eurostat-news/-/DDN-20180620-1.
Ficarra, L., Rubino, M.J. and Morote, E.S. (2020), “Does organizational culture affect employee
happiness?”, Journal for Leadership and Instruction, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 38-47.
Garc
ıa-Buades, M.E., Peir
o, J.M., Monta~nez-Juan, M.I., Kozusznik, M.W. and Ortiz-Bonn
ın, S. (2020),
“Happy-productive teams and work units: a systematic review of the ‘happy-productive worker
thesis”, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 17 No. 1, p. 69.
Gardner, W.L., Reithel, B.J., Cogliser, C.C., Walumbwa, F.O. and Foley, R.T. (2012), “Matching
personality and organizational culture: effects of recruitment strategy and the Five-Factor
Model on subjective person–organization fit”, Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 26
No. 4, pp. 585-622, doi: 10.1177/0893318912450663.
Goodman, E.A., Zammuto, R.F. and Gifford, B.D. (2001), “The competing values framework:
understanding the impact of organizational culture on the quality of work life”, Organizational
Development Journal, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 58-68.
Grant, C.A., Wallace, L.M., Spurgeon, P.C., Tramontano, C. and Charalampous, M. (2018),
“Construction and initial validation of the E-Work Life Scale to measure remote e-working”,
Employee Relations, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 16-33.
Hamilton, E. (2002), Bringing Work Home: Advantages and Challenges of Telecommuting, Center for The moderating
Work & Family. Chestnut Hill, MA.
role of
Harrington, S.J. and Ruppel, C.P. (1999), “Telecommuting: a test of trust, competing values, and
relative advantage”, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, Vol. 42, pp. 223-239.
organizational
Harrington, S.J. and Santiago, J. (2006), “Organizational culture and telecommuters’ quality of work life
culture
and professional isolation”, Communications of the IIMA, Vol. 6 No. 3, p. 1.
Hartnell, C.A., Ou, A.Y. and Kinicki, A. (2011), “Organizational culture and organizational
effectiveness: a meta-analytic investigation of the competing values framework’s theoretical
suppositions”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 96 No. 4, p. 677, doi: 10.1037/a0021987.
Have, S., Have, W., Stevens, F., Elst, M. and Pol-Coyne, F. (2003), Key Management Models: The
Management Tools and Practices that Will Improve Your Business, Financial Times Prentice
Hall, London.
Hayes, A.F. (2018), “Partial, conditional, and moderated moderated mediation: quantification,
inference, and interpretation”, Communication Monographs, Vol. 85 No. 1, pp. 4-40, doi: 10.
1080/03637751.2017.1352100.
Hofstede, G. (1994), “The business of international business is culture”, International Business Review,
Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Hofstede, G. (2009), “American culture and the 2008 financial crisis”, European Business Review,
Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 307-312, doi: 10.1108/09555340910970418.
Hofstede, G. (2011), National Cultures, Organizational Cultures, and the Role of Management. Values
and Ethics for the 21st Century, BBVA, Madrid, pp. 459-481.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.J. and Minkov, M. (2005), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind,
Vol. 2, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Igbaria, M. and Guimares, T. (1999), “Exploring differences in employee turnover intentions and its
determinants among telecommuters and non telecommuters”, Journal of Management
Information Systems, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 147-164.
International Labour Organization (2020), ILO Monitor: COVID-19 and the World of Work. Updated
Estimates and Analysis, International Labour Organization, Geneva.
Januwarsono, S. (2015), “Analytical of factors determinants of happiness at work case study on PT.
PLN (persero) region suluttenggo, sulawesi, Indonesia. European”, Journal of Business and
Management, Vol. 7 No. 8, pp. 9-17.
Junça-Silva, A., Pombeira, C. and Caetano, A. (2021), “Testing the affective events theory: the
mediating role of affect and the moderating role of mindfulness”, Applied Cognitive Psychology,
Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 1075-1081, doi: 10.1002/acp.3843.
Junça-Silva, A. and Silva, D. (2022), “How is the life without unicorns? A within-individual study on
the relationship between uncertainty and mental health indicators: the moderating role of
neuroticism”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 188, p. 111462, doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2021.
111462.
Kane-Urrabanzo, C. (2006), “Management’s role in shaping organizational culture”, Journal of Nursing
Management, Vol. 14, pp. 188-194.
Kossek, E.E., Lautsch, B.A. and Eaton, S.C. (2006), “Telecommuting, control, and boundary
management: correlates of policy use and practice, job control, and work–family effectiveness”,
Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 68 No. 2, pp. 347-367.
Krajcs
ak, Z. and Koz
ak, A. (2022), “The moderating role of remote work in the relationship between
organizational culture and OCB: case studies from the financial sector”, Journal of Advances in
Management Research, doi: 10.1108/JAMR-07-2021-0247.
Kurland, N.B. and Bailey, D.E. (1999), “Telework: the advantages and challenges of working here,
there, anywhere, and anytime”, IEEE Engineering Management Review, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 49-60.
K Kwon, M. and Jeon, S.H. (2020), “Do leadership commitment and performance-oriented culture matter
for federal teleworker satisfaction with telework programs?”, Review of Public Personnel
Administration, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 36-55, doi: 10.1177/0734371X18776049.
Lok, P. and Crawford, J. (2004), “The effect of organisational culture and leadership style on job
satisfaction and organisational commitment: a cross-national comparison”, Journal of
Management Development, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 321-338, doi: 10.1108/02621710410529785.
Lyubomirsky, S. and Lepper, H.S. (1999), “A measure of subjective happiness: preliminary reliability
and construct validation”, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 137-155.
Michalos, A.C. (1985), “Multiple discrepancies theory (MDT)”, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 16 No. 4,
pp. 347-413.
Myers, D.G. and Diener, E. (1995), “Who is happy?”, Psychological Science, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 10-19.
Neves, J. (1996), Clima organizacional, cultura organizacional e gest~
ao de recursos humanos: Portugal
no contexto de outros pa
ıses, Tese de doutoramento, ISCTE, Lisboa.
Neves, J. and Lopes, A. (2000), “Cultura organizacional, satisfaç~ao e cidadania organizacional”, in
Gomes, A.D., Caetano, A., Keating, J. and Pina e Cunha, M. (Eds), Organizaç~oes em Transiç~ao,
Imprensa da Universidade, Coimbra.
Nilles, J. (1975), “Telecommunications and organizational decentralization”, IEEE Transactions on
Communications, Vol. 23 No. 10, pp. 1142-1147.
Ollo-L
opez, A., Go~ ni-Legaz, S. and Erro-Garc
es, A. (2020), “Home-based telework: usefulness and
facilitators”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 644-660.
Olynick, J. and Li, H.Z. (2020), “Organizational culture and its relationship with employee stress,
enjoyment of work and productivity”, International Journal of Psychological Studies, Vol. 12, p.
14, doi: 10.5539/ijps.v12n2p14.
Quinn, R.E. and Rohrbaugh, J. (1981), “A competing values approach to Organizational Effectiveness”,
Public Productivity Review, June, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 122-140, doi: 10.2307/3380029.
Quinn, R.E. and Rohrbaugh, J. (1983), “A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: towards a competing
values approach to organizational analysis”, Management Science, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 363-377.
Quinn, R.E. and Spreitzer, G.M. (1991), “The psychometrics of the competing values culture
instrument and an analysis of the impact of organizational culture on quality of life”, in
Woodman, R.W. and Pasmore, W.A. (Eds), Research in Organizational Change and
Development, Vol. 5, pp. 115-142.
Quinn, R.E., Faerman, S.R., Thompson, M.P., McGrath, M.R. and Clair, L.S.S.T. (2011), Becoming a
Master Manager: A Competing Values Approach, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Robertson, M.M. and Mosier, K. (2020), Work from Home: Human Factors/Ergonomics Considerations
for Teleworking, Organizaci
on Internacional del Trabajo, Geneva.
Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2001), “On happiness and human potentials: a review of research on
hedonic and eudaimonic well-being”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 141-166,
doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141.
Ryff, C.D. (1989), “Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological
well-being”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 57 No. 6, pp. 1069-1081.
S
anchez, A.M., P
erez, M.P., de Luis Carnicer, P. and Vela-Jim
enez, M.J. (2007), “Telework, human
resource flexibility and firm performance”, New Technology, Work and Employment, Vol. 22
No. 3, pp. 208-223.
Sardeshmukh, S.R., Sharma, D. and Golden, T.D. (2012), “Impact of telework on exhaustion and job
engagement: a job demands and job resources model”, New Technology, Work and Employment,
Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 193-207.
Sarmento, M.J. (1994), A vez e a voz dos professores: contributo para o estudo da cultura organizacional
da escola prim
aria, Porto Editora, Porto.
Schein, E.H. (1990), “Organizational culture”, American Psychologist, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 109-119. The moderating
Song, Y. and Gao, J. (2020), “Does telework stress employees out? A study on working at home and role of
subjective well-being for wage/salary workers”, Journal of Happiness Studies, Vol. 21 No. 7,
pp. 2649-2668, doi: 10.1007/s10902-019-00196-6.
organizational
Standen, P. (2000), “Organizational culture and telework”, in Daniels, K., Lamond, D. and Standen, P.
culture
(Eds), Managing Telework: Perspectives from Human Resource Management and Work
Psychology, Thomson Learning, London, pp. 31-42.
Steil, A.V. and Barcia, R.M. (2001), “Um modelo para an
alise da prontid~ao organizacional para
implantar o teletrabalho”, Revista de Administraç~ao, S~
ao Paulo, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 74-84.
Sullivan, C. (2012), “Remote working and work-life balance”, in Reilly, N., Sirgy, M. and Gorman, C.
(Eds), Work and Quality of Life. International Handbooks of Quality-of-Life, Springer, Dordrecht.
doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-4059-4_15.
Tavares, A.I. (2017), “Telework and health effects review”, International Journal of Healthcare, Vol. 3
No. 2, p. 30.
Taylor, S., Fong, A. and Asmundson, G.J. (2021), “Predicting the severity of symptoms of the COVID
stress syndrome from personality traits: a prospective network analysis”, Frontiers in
Psychology, Vol. 12, p. 1582, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.632227.
Uresha, I. (2020), “Influence of telecommuting on work-life balance and employee happiness: an
empirical study of Sri Lankan employees”, International Journal of Management Excellence,
Vol. 15, pp. 234-2243.
Van Muijen, J.J. (1999), “Organizational culture: the focus questionnaire”, European Journal of Work
and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 551-568, doi: 10.1080/135943299398168.
Vanderberghe, C. and Peir
o, J.M. (1999), “Organizational and individual values: their main and
combined effects on work attitudes and perceptions”, European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 569-581.
Warr, P. (1990), “The measurement of well-being and other aspects of mental health”, Journal of
Occupational Psychology, Vol. 63 No. 3, pp. 193-210.
Waterman, A.S. (1993), “Two conceptions of happiness: contrasts of personal expressiveness
(eudaimonia) and hedonic enjoyment”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 64
No. 4, p. 678.
Waterman, A.S., Schwartz, S.J. and Conti, R. (2008), “The implications of two conceptions of happiness
(hedonic enjoyment and eudaimonia) for the understanding of intrinsic motivation”, Journal of
Happiness Studies, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 41-79.
Weinert, C., Maier, C. and Laumer, S. (2015), “Why are teleworkers stressed? An empirical analysis of
the causes of telework-enabled stress”, Wirtschaftsinformatik Proceedings 2015, p. 94, available
at: https://aisel.aisnet.org/wi2015/94.
Wright, T.A. (2005), “The role of “happiness” in organizational research: past, present and future
directions”, in Exploring Interpersonal Dynamics, Emerald Group Publishing.
Wright, T.A. and Staw, B.M. (1999), “Affect and favorable work outcomes: two longitudinal tests of
the happy–productive worker thesis. Journal of Organizational Behavior”, The International
Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, Vol. 20
No. 1, pp. 1-23.

Further reading
Bailey, D.E. and Kurland, N.B. (2002), “A review of telework research: findings, new directions, and
lessons for the study of modern work”, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 23,
pp. 383-400.
Eurofound and ILO (2017), Working Anytime, Anywhere: The Effects on the World of Work,
Eurofound, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, and International Labour
K Office, Geneva, available at: https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/report/2017/
working-anytime-anywherethe-effects-on-the-world-of-work.
Organizaç~ao Internacional do Trabalho (OIT) (2020), Teleworking during the COVID-19 Pandemic and
beyond: A Practical Guide, International Labour Office, Geneva.

Corresponding author
Ana Junça Silva can be contacted at: analjsilva@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com