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

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0048-3486.htm

Crafting telework: a process model Crafting

telework
of need satisfaction to foster
telework outcomes
Michal Biron 671
Department of Business Administration, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel
Received 13 April 2021
Wendy J. Casper Revised 18 July 2021
The University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas, USA, and 19 October 2021
Accepted 27 January 2022
Sumita Raghuram
San Jose State University, San Jose, California, USA

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to offer a model explicating telework as a dynamic process, theorizing
that teleworkers continuously adjust – their identities, boundaries and relationships – to meet their own needs
for competence, autonomy and relatedness in their work and nonwork roles.
Design/methodology/approach – This study uses the lens of job crafting to posit changes teleworkers
make to enhance work-nonwork balance and job performance, including time-related individual differences to
account for contingencies in dynamic adjustments. Finally, this study discusses how feedback from work and
nonwork role partners and one’s self-evaluation results in an iterative process of learning to telework over time.
Findings – This model describes how teleworkers craft work and nonwork roles to satisfy needs, enhancing
key outcomes and eliciting role partner feedback to further recraft telework.
Research limitations/implications – The propositions can be translated to hypotheses. As such the
dynamic model for crafting telework can be used as a basis for empirical studies aimed at understanding how
telework adjustment process unfolds.
Practical implications – Intervention studies could focus on teleworkers’ job crafting behavior.
Organizations may also offer training to prepare employees to telework and to create conditions under
which teleworkers’ job crafting behavior more easily translates into need satisfaction and positive outcomes.
Social implications – Many employees would prefer to work from home, at least partly, when the COVID-19
crisis is over. This model offers a way to facilitate a smooth transition into this work mode while ensuring work
nonwork balance and performance.
Originality/value – Most telework research takes a static approach to focus on the work–family interface.
This study proffers a dynamic approach suggesting need satisfaction as the mechanism enabling one to
combine work and domestic roles and delineating how feedback enables continuous adjustment in professional
and personal roles.
Keywords Feedback, Job crafting, Need satisfaction, Telework, Temporal contingencies
Paper type Conceptual paper

Introduction
Telework (or telecommuting, virtual work or remote work) allows employees to work in
locations other than their primary office. The roots of telework trace back to the early 1990s
when employers implemented telework to reduce fixed costs (Raghuram et al., 2019). Most
recently, employees worldwide have transitioned to full- or part-time telework to reduce the
spread of COVID-19 (Haag, 2020; Kramer and Kramer, 2020). Yet, as the pandemic subsides,
long-term telework is being considered by many firms (Streitfeld, 2020). A recent survey
revealed that 63% of workers prefer to work from home, at least part-time, after the COVID-19
crisis (Mikula, 2020). These upward trends in telework frequency underscore the need to Personnel Review
understand how to enhance work–nonwork balance and productivity among teleworkers. Vol. 52 No. 3, 2023
pp. 671-686
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0048-3486
All authors contributed equally and names are listed alphabetically. DOI 10.1108/PR-04-2021-0259
PR The extant telework literature suffers from two major shortcomings. First, it mostly
52,3 discusses telework in static terms, ignoring changes that teleworkers make to cognitions,
physical spaces and relationships over time. Second, it focuses primarily on the work–family
interface, ignoring interactions with work-related role partners like coworkers, supervisors,
customers and suppliers. With regard to the first concern, with a few exceptions (e.g. Biron and
van Veldhoven, 2016; Tietze, 2002; Tietze and Musson, 2005), telework research utilizes cross-
sectional data, often comparing high- and low-intensity telework (i.e. number of days of remote
672 work; Wiesenfeld et al., 2001) or office workers and home-based teleworkers (Hill et al., 1998).
Importantly, most samples include teleworkers at different levels of adjustment. For example,
one study sample might include experienced teleworkers with established productivity patterns,
and new teleworkers who are struggling to adjust to telework, and those anywhere in between.
Such an approach captures respondents’ perceptions at a single point in time and cannot explain
the process of learning to telework – the cognitive and behavioral adjustments that people make
to telework effectively. This may explain why telework is sometimes linked to positive outcomes
and other times to negative outcomes (Gajendran and Harrison, 2007). For example, some studies
find that telework relates to increased work–nonwork balance (Hill et al., 1998: Wheatley, 2012),
higher job satisfaction (McNall et al., 2009), reduced stress (Biron and van Veldhoven, 2016) and
improved productivity (Mikula, 2020), whereas others find more work–nonwork conflict (Kossek
et al., 2006), greater social isolation (Bailey and Kurland, 2002) and lower organizational
identification (Wiesenfeld et al., 2001).
The second shortcoming of telework research is a focus on the work–family interface (e.g. Hill
et al., 1998; Kossek et al., 2006) to the exclusion of other important aspects of telework. The most
common alternate work location is the home, which carries implications for coordinating work
and family roles (Bailey and Kurland, 2002; Gajendran and Harrison, 2007; Tietze et al., 2009).
Notably, Tietze and colleagues explore the dynamic aspects of telework, but their work is limited
to work and family boundaries. They proffer that teleworkers cope with practical, social and
moral tensions resulting from co-locating work and home by continuously negotiating with
family and adjusting the use of temporal and spatial resources (Tietze, 2002; Tietze and Musson,
2005). Similarly, Whapshott and Mallett (2011) discuss the on-going (re)construction of space use
due to a collapse in the demarcation of home and work spheres in telework. These authors
discuss telework as a dynamic phenomenon but fail to consider teleworker negotiations with
work role or nonwork role partners other than family. This is an important oversight, because
teleworkers are physically distanced from work role partners (i.e. colleagues and managers) and
may have important nonwork role partners besides family.
A dynamic holistic view is important to guide research on how people learn to telework
harmoniously with work and nonwork requirements and fosters work performance. With the
increasing prevalence of telework, such research is practically relevant. Yet, to our
knowledge, only one paper has explored how teleworkers learn. Limburg (2003) draws from
the lens of learning to offer a prototype to guide firms implementing telework. He suggests
firms (1) identify aspects of the organization and work involved in a change to telework (i.e.
current routines, procedures and communication technology) and (2) provide managers,
employees and project teams with clear objectives and guidelines for teleworking. While
Limburg (2003) offers good suggestions, there is clearly a need to advance theory that can
stimulate research on learning to telework over time.
We offer a theoretical model that outlines a process by which teleworkers craft aspects of
their work and nonwork roles to foster satisfaction with autonomy, relatedness and
competence needs and facilitate positive outcomes (de Bloom et al., 2020; Ryan and Deci, 2000;
Wrzesniewski and Dutton, 2001). As such, we advance a dynamic view of telework in four
ways. First, we extend job crafting theory to telework. Second, we extend research that
considers how teleworkers negotiate and adjust with family members by including other role
partners (stakeholders) from both work and nonwork domains, such as supervisors,
colleagues, customers, nonwork friends and professional and local community members. Crafting
Third, we introduce time-related individual differences, which may explain for whom the telework
association between telework crafting and need satisfaction is stronger. Finally, we integrate
sensemaking into our model (George and Jones, 2001) to theorize about how teleworkers
continuously use feedback from internal (self) and external (e.g. supervisor, family and
friends) sources to further (re)craft teleworking to foster need satisfaction and telework in a
more effective and harmonious way (Klein, 1989).
In sum, the aim of this paper is to develop a theoretical model of the dynamism inherent in 673
telework. In our holistic, iterative model, we propose that when employees experience new
work schemas, like those afforded by telework, they can optimize work routines, consider
misalignments and positive aspects of their work design and change as needed – so as to
enhance productivity and well-being in work and nonwork domains (Zammuto et al., 2007).
Our process model is illustrated in Figure 1.

Crafting telework for need satisfaction

Employees shape work activities and experiences to create conditions that enable optimal
functioning (i.e. feeling and performing well) by engaging in job crafting (Vogel et al., 2016). The
role-based approach to job crafting (Bruning and Campion, 2018; Wrzesniewski and Dutton,
2001) describes three kinds of crafting: cognitive crafting – defining and framing what a job
means to one’s identity; physical crafting – managing the quantity, scope and location of job
tasks; and relational crafting – managing interactions with people at work. Whereas crafting
research traditionally focused on work, more recently scholars have recognized that crafting
occurs in both work and nonwork roles (Sturges, 2012; Wessels et al., 2019).
Psychological needs satisfaction has been suggested as the underlying process through
which cognitive crafting fosters positive attitudes and behaviors (de Bloom et al., 2020).
However, in addition to cognitive crafting, physical and relational crafting may also foster
need satisfaction of teleworkers. Specifically, teleworkers may be motivated to craft aspects
of work and nonwork roles to satisfy needs to (1) use resources effectively to meet work and
nonwork requirements (need for competence); (2) have greater control over their job and life
(i.e. need for autonomy); and (3) have meaningful interactions with other people (need for
relatedness) (Berg et al., 2008). We draw from self-determination theory (Ryan and Deci, 2000)

Comparator Feedback from

(Actual vs. desired multiple sources
outcomes) (internal/external)

Cognitive craftingof
work and nonwork
identities
Need satisfaction
Physical crafting of Competence Work-nonwork balance
work-nonwork boundaries Autonomy
and task allocation Job performance
Relatedness
Relational craftingof
professional and personal
networks

Figure 1.
Moderating factors A process model of
Time-related individual differences (career stage; telework experience; telework
time management; polychronicity)
PR to discuss how the flexibility to work in different times/locations offers teleworkers discretion
52,3 in how to pursue work and nonwork goals, enabling them to craft behaviors to fulfill
various needs.

Cognitive crafting
Teleworking has implications for how people see themselves as employees and in relation to
674 other people. People form personal identities based on roles and relationships, and collective
identities based on group membership (Stryker and Burke, 2000; Tajfel and Turner, 1986). Social
identity theory suggests that people have multiple identities, which are arranged hierarchically
by salience (Stets and Serpe, 2013). Identities that are most central to the self are more salient
than those that are less central to self, and identity salience can change over time (Ibarra, 1999).
Individuals have the capacity to shape new identities as they work towards “hoped-for”
identities (Kreiner and Sheep, 2009) and develop provisional liminal identities – an in-between
state of current and aspired identities (Ibarra, 1999; Raghuram, 2013). Teleworkers can engage in
cognitive crafting to develop identities that closely match their “ideal self” (e.g. both an ideal
parent and an ideal employee), which can foster need satisfaction.
Work identity. During telework, an employee’s identity as an organizational member may be
threatened by fewer work-related in-person interactions. Teleworkers who feel isolated from the
organization may also perceive less respect at work (Bartel et al., 2012) and are less likely to
identify with the organization (Thatcher and Zhu, 2006). To restore a work-related identity,
teleworkers may engage in activities to affirm positive self-concepts as contributing members
(Tajfel and Turner, 1986). For example, they may decorate a home office with reminders of the
organization (e.g. awards from work) or dress in work clothes to “go to work” in a home office
(Thatcher and Zhu, 2006). Such rituals help teleworkers to satisfy needs for competence and
autonomy (e.g. being perceived as a professional by work role partners, opting in or out of work
rituals as they see fit). Moreover, teleworkers may find new ways to stay connected with role
partners at work (Swann et al., 1992), such as virtual interactions with work colleagues (via
Teams or Zoom), meeting needs for relatedness (Wiesenfeld et al., 2001).
Nonwork identity. Besides changing how they work, teleworkers may also change their
self-view in the nonwork domain (Ashforth et al., 2000). The flexibility of telework can provide
opportunities to invest in important nonwork identities such as family member, friend or
volunteer. Affirming these nonwork identities can satisfy teleworker needs for relatedness
(being with family, friends, etc.), competence (being effective as a spouse or parent) and
autonomy (to invest in identity-salient roles). For example, compared to office workers,
teleworkers have more flexibility to participate in children’s school activities (e.g. chaperone a
school trip), help an aging parent, drive a friend to a medical appointment or volunteer in an
animal shelter. Such activities may enable teleworkers to develop a more positive self-concept
as a parent, daughter/son, friend and community member.
Proposition 1a. Teleworkers engage in cognitive crafting of work and nonwork identities
to foster satisfaction of needs for competence, autonomy and relatedness;
as need satisfaction increases, they engage in less cognitive crafting.

Physical crafting
Teleworkers work in various locations, but we focus on two common locations: home and
office (Gajendran and Harrison, 2007). A key concern with working from home is that it leads
to collapse of work-nonwork boundaries (Kossek et al., 2006; Tietze and Musson, 2005;
Whapshott and Mallett, 2011). Teleworkers may use two forms of physical crafting to
minimize conflict between work and nonwork and foster need satisfaction: boundary
management and task allocation.
 Work-nonwork boundaries management. People use boundary management strategies to Crafting
build, keep, arrange and/or cross boundaries between work and nonwork (Ashforth et al., 2000; telework
Kossek, 2016). Boundaries vary in the degree to which they are permeable and flexible and can
be physical or psychological in nature (Nippert-Eng, 1996). Permeable boundaries are those in
which one domain can enter the other domain (Ashforth et al., 2000). For example, a home
boundary becomes permeable when a person answers work-related phone calls at home.
Flexibility of boundaries has to do with the ability to enact roles in different places (location
flexibility) or at different times (temporal flexibility) (Ashforth et al., 2000). Teleworkers often 675
have some location flexibility to work either at an office location or at home, but there may be
differences between teleworkers in their location flexibility. Teleworkers also differ in the degree
of temporal flexibility afforded by their work. For example, an employee whose job involves
mostly report writing may have high temporal flexibility to work at any hour of the day, while an
educator who teaches synchronously must deliver lectures at the time they are scheduled.
People vary in their preferences for boundaries between work and home (Kreiner, 2006).
Some people have strong preferences to create and enforce strong boundaries between work
and home – an approach called role segmentation, where they maintain impermeable and
inflexible boundaries to keep work and home separate (Ashforth et al., 2000). In contrast,
others prefer integration, where boundaries are permeable and work and home blend together
(Kossek, 2016). Teleworkers whose jobs are highly flexible can often craft boundaries that
align with their preferences. For instance, those who prefer integration create permeable
boundaries to combine work and home when teleworking (e.g. answering work-related e-
mails while homeschooling; Kossek, 2016). In contrast, teleworkers who prefer segmentation
create impermeable boundaries to reduce cross-role interruptions (e.g. remote working in a
home office that family members do not enter) (Fenner and Renn, 2004; Olson-Buchanan and
Boswell, 2006). Yet teleworkers’ boundary management behavior is influenced not only by
their own preferences but also by those of family members or other cohabitants. While a
teleworker who prefers segmentation wants to work in a home-office with no interruptions,
an interruption-free zone would need to be negotiated with home role partners.
In addition to people in the home, teleworkers may have to negotiate their boundary
management behavior with role partners at work, such as members of their work team or
supervisor. For example, organizational norms for constant availability via communication
technology may be enforced by work role partners, forcing teleworkers to integrate work and
nonwork. This may be counter to their personal preferences (or abilities) of segmentation
(Derks et al., 2016). Teleworkers may also craft their physical space based on negotiations
with colleagues or supervisors. For example, when working on a team project, teleworkers
may split work time between the office and home after negotiating to complete part of a task
away from the office on a particular day. For some teleworkers, this location flexibility may
also coexist with temporal flexibility.
Given physical role integration offers both benefits and costs, successful crafting may
involve a cycling boundary management approach in which teleworkers alternate between
integrating and segmenting, depending on what best fits the situation, to foster need
satisfaction (Kossek, 2016). For example, a teleworker on a short deadline might use
segmentation, declining personal calls to focus on task completion, satisfying needs for
competence and autonomy. At other times, the same teleworker may attend an important
family event but keep her phone nearby to attend to work-related calls as needed. In this latter
case, integration enables the teleworker to satisfy need for relatedness (being with family) and
competence (attending to work).
Allocation of tasks. Location and temporal flexibility enable teleworkers to decide which
work tasks are best completed at which location. To be effective, task allocation between
work and home should be guided by task requirements and leveraging the benefits of each
location. For instance, tasks may be professional/technical or administrative/clerical in
PR nature, independent or interdependent or vary in the tools and information required to
52,3 perform them (Picot et al., 2008). Interdependent tasks, customer service tasks and feedback-
giving often benefit from the physical presence and rich face-to-face communication.
Technology-enabled meetings (e.g. video-conferences) capture fewer socio-emotional cues
and engender less associative thinking, which may impair team creativity (Postmes et al.,
1998). However, as telework allows concentration in a less intrusive environment (home),
tasks that require undisturbed stretches of time (e.g. writing) are better done away from the
676 office (Bailey and Kurland, 2002; Golden and Gajendran, 2019).
Effective task allocation involves the completion of tasks at their designated location
(Fenner and Renn, 2004). This is not always easy because people who telework part-time often
compress meetings with customers, colleagues and supervisors into a short time at the office.
They may compensate for a low organizational presence working at home by “showing
themselves” when they are in the office (Thatcher and Zhu, 2006), occupying office time with
meetings and social interactions such that tasks originally assigned for office completion
spillover to home, leaving home domain duties unfinished (Sonnentag, 2012). Teleworkers
who are careful in how much they transfer office tasks to home and vice versa are likely to
satisfy needs for autonomy and competence.
Proposition 1b. Teleworkers engage in physical crafting in the form of boundary
management and task allocation to foster satisfaction of needs for
competence, autonomy and relatedness; as need satisfaction increases,
they engage in less physical crafting.

Relationship crafting
Teleworking challenges relationships in both work and nonwork domains (Bailey and
Kurland, 2002; Gajendran and Harrison, 2007). Teleworkers may engage in relational crafting
of professional and personal networks to increase need satisfaction.
Professional networks. Comprised of relationships with supervisors, coworkers and
customers, professional networks are often created and maintained informally during
unscheduled, face-to-face interactions or through formal meetings (Kurland and Pelled, 2000).
Telework can limit access to such networks because teleworkers have fewer, less intensive
interactions with work role partners, creating difficulty transferring (seeking, giving and
receiving) tacit knowledge or to learning vicariously when teleworking (Golden and
Raghuram, 2010; Raghuram, 1996). As such, Bartel et al. (2012) suggested that teleworkers
may use impression management strategies (e.g. frequent online communication, timely
responses to supervisors) to project an image of themselves as attentive professionals,
meeting needs for relatedness and competence. These needs can also be met by expanding
professional networks beyond their employer through membership in professional
associations and online communities. By relying less on their employer for mentoring and
advice, external networks also help teleworkers satisfy needs for autonomy (Skyrme, 2007).
Personal networks. If teleworkers feel isolated from work peers, unmet needs for
relatedness may underlie relational crafting outside of work to develop personal role
identities (Westaby et al., 2014). For example, teleworkers with temporal flexibility can
volunteer for activities at a child’s school during school hours, allowing access to diverse
social and emotional resources (Cohen, 2004). Teleworkers may receive instrumental support
from personal networks, which can meet needs for competence in nonwork roles (Wellman
and Wortley, 1990), as a rich community network may provide resources to manage nonwork
challenges related to home maintenance or dependent care (House, 1981). Broader networks
outside of work can also satisfy autonomy needs as teleworkers rely less on organizational
sources (e.g. colleagues and supervisor) for support and diversify their support network
outside of work (e.g. neighbors, friends and family members).
 Proposition 1c. Teleworkers engage in relational crafting by developing relationships Crafting
with work and nonwork role partners to foster satisfaction of needs for telework
competence, autonomy and relatedness; as need satisfaction increases,
they engage in less relationship crafting.

Need satisfaction and telework outcomes

In the previous section we proposed that cognitive, physical and relational crafting leads to 677
autonomy, competence and relatedness need satisfaction. In this section, we theorize that
need satisfaction fosters the key outcomes of work–nonwork balance and job performance.

Need satisfaction and work–nonwork balance

Work–nonwork balance has been recently defined as “Employees’ evaluation of the
favorability of their combination of work and nonwork roles, arising from the degree to which
their affective experiences and their perceived involvement and effectiveness in work and
nonwork roles are commensurate with the value they attach to these roles” (Casper et al., 2018,
p. 197). This definition conceptualizes balance as an attitude about how work and nonwork
roles fit together, based on how employees combine important work and nonwork roles, their
evaluation of how effective they are in combining these roles, and their perception of whether
they are adequately involved in these roles. We argue that as teleworkers satisfy distinct
needs through job crafting, work–nonwork balance will improve.
A meta-analytic study (Gajendran and Harrison, 2007) shows that teleworkers, compared
to office workers, perceive higher autonomy in determining how time and resources are
allocated to work. When the need for autonomy is met, teleworkers can more effectively
attend to work and nonwork roles (e.g. swap between tasks). Met needs for competence across
work and nonwork roles help reduce teleworkers’ concerns about work and nonwork role
performance, fostering confidence and comfort in inhabiting dual identities. Finally,
satisfying relatedness needs (due to good relationships in both work and nonwork domains)
can provide employees with pleasurable experiences in their valued work and nonwork roles,
likely fostering work–nonwork balance (e.g. Maruyama and Tietze, 2012; Tims et al., 2012).
Proposition 2. As teleworkers satisfy their needs for autonomy, competence and
relatedness, they perceive higher work–nonwork balance.

Need satisfaction and performance

Job performance is a multi-faceted construct with both task and contextual aspects. Task
performance focuses on technical aspects of a job (e.g. quantity and quality), whereas
contextual performance includes extra-role behaviors that aid the successful functioning of
an organization (Borman and Motowidlo, 1997). Both aspects of performance are important to
consider in teleworkers’ contribution to their employer (Gajendran et al., 2015).
As teleworkers satisfy their need for autonomy due to the perceived flexibility of their job
in time and place, they can engage in timely and well-informed actions that fit their
performance objectives. This can result in being effective in role-prescribed tasks (Gajendran
and Harrison, 2007). For example, with fulfilled needs for autonomy, teleworkers can service
clients in different time zones via communication technology – for example, they might
change their work hours to match those of the client. Moreover, fulfilled needs for autonomy
free up cognitive and temporal resources, so teleworkers can more efficiently engage in both
task-related and extra-role behaviors (Demerouti and Bakker, 2011; Gajendran et al., 2015).
For example, teleworkers save commute time which they can devote to helping colleagues or
serving on committees.
PR As teleworkers meet competence needs, they make their skills visible inside and outside
52,3 their organization and can leverage their social capital for better performance (e.g. through
diverse professional networks that offer access to new ideas) (Zhang and Venkatesh, 2013).
Simultaneously, teleworkers with an established professional standing can engage in
contextual performance by sharing their expertise with colleagues and, in turn, benefit the
organization.
Lastly, satisfied needs for relatedness can foster both task and contextual performance.
678 When teleworkers feel connected, they may feel valued in the organization (Raghuram et al.,
2001), fostering a desire to help (Kurtessis et al., 2015). Relatedness can also increase
teleworkers’ trust in work relationships (e.g. with peers) and the organization. Such positive
relationships may foster a willingness to share know-how and exert discretionary task
performance (Golden and Raghuram, 2010).
Proposition 3. As teleworkers satisfy their needs for autonomy, competence and
relatedness, they exhibit higher task and contextual performance.

Time-related moderators
While there may be many moderators that impact the association between telework crafting
and need satisfaction, our model considers time-related individual differences (see Shipp and
Cole, 2015), which may explain why people adapt to telework more or less quickly
(Wrzesniewski and Dutton, 2001).
First, career stage is likely relevant to how quickly teleworkers adapt. Teleworkers at an
advanced career stage may have well-established work identities, professional networks, and
good understandings of task demands gained via experience in the job and/or organization
(Parker, 2014). Their higher level of work-related knowledge (formal and informal) should
strengthen the relationship between crafting and need satisfaction. Second, those who have
experience with teleworking (Raghuram et al., 2001) are more likely to have already crafted
their work and nonwork identities, learned to manage boundaries between work and home
and developed community networks. Thus, experienced teleworkers should require less
crafting to foster need satisfaction and adapt more easily to more intense teleworking. Third,
time management skills such as goal setting, scheduling and sequencing tasks (Shipp and
Cole, 2015) may enable crafting telework with greater ease. Teleworkers with good time
management skills may be better able to leverage the temporal flexibility of telework to craft
work and nonwork domains toward satisfying needs (Raghuram et al., 2003). Finally, we
consider polychronicity, which refers to a preference to work on multiple tasks, switching back
and forth among different activities rather than doing one thing at a time (Slocombe and
Bluedorn, 1999). As telework can require managing work and nonwork roles simultaneously,
people high in polychronicity might enjoy the multi-role juggling act of telework, naturally
using cognitive, physical and relational crafting to satisfy needs in work and nonwork
domains (Sonnentag et al., 2014).
Proposition 4. The relationship between telework crafting and satisfaction of needs for
competence, autonomy and relatedness is stronger for individuals (1) in
more advanced career stages, (2) with more telework experience, (3) with
stronger time management skills and (4) with a preference for
polychronicity.

Feedback loops in the telework process

We argue that within-teleworker need satisfaction increases over time as teleworkers engage in
cognitive, physical and relationship crafting, fostering work–nonwork balance and
performance. Once needs are met, crafting efforts may be reduced until the teleworker receives Crafting
feedback urging reconsidering of need fulfilment and, subsequently, recrafting. In this final piece telework
of our model, we explain how need satisfaction is continuously assessed by heeding feedback
from internal (self) and external agents (e.g. family, friends, colleagues and supervisors).
Teleworkers make sense of this feedback by comparing actual vs desired outcomes. If they
perceive unmet needs, they can further modify their approach with job recrafting to improve
need satisfaction and ultimately foster better telework outcomes (cf. Klein, 1989).
We theorize that knowledge gathered via feedback loops leads to reconsideration of 679
cognitive, physical and relational crafting. This is because repeated internal and external
push-backs help teleworkers clarify their thinking about their job design and identify
problems and opportunities for a redesign (i.e. changes that can enhance need satisfaction).
For example, teleworkers may self-evaluate progress at work by comparing goals with
achievements, self-assess family dedication by comparing performance on household duties
to family expectations or personally experience telework as generating high or low stress;
family members may express opinions about a teleworker’s work–home balance; coworkers
may commend or criticize a teleworker’s work dedication. Role partners’ views are
communicated to a teleworker through ongoing interactions at work and home, which can
impact teleworker attitudes and beliefs (Salancik and Pfeffer, 1978). Such feedback from
others and self about actual outcomes is compared to desired outcomes. The “comparison”
element in our model explains how tensions between desired and actual outcomes potentially
result in perceptions of (un)met needs, which can “lead to a change in existing schemas and,
hence, changes in individual perceptions, interpretations, and behaviors” (George and Jones,
2001, p. 421; Ibarra, 1999).
Feedback loops depict the reciprocal relationship between need satisfaction and telework
crafting – an interplay that goes both ways – crafting leads to high need satisfaction, and low
need satisfaction (created by negative feedback) fosters recrafting of telework behavior to
better satisfy needs. This within-person learning process evolves over time. As teleworkers
gain skills and experience, teleworking becomes more beneficial to work–nonwork balance
and performance (Parker, 2014). Ariely and Carmon (2000) discussed how people develop
experience profiles over time. These profiles are dynamic, that is, the trend of experiences
over time shape expectations for the future and thereby, current experiences. A teleworker’s
mastery of job crafting, which fosters effective telework at an earlier point in time, may
provide a reference point for improvement in using job crafting at a later time; teleworkers
continuously assess their progress on important outcomes (relative to where they want to be;
see the “Comparator” element in Figure 1) and make adjustments (Li et al., 2017). These
feedback loops determine within-person changes and are key in understanding telework as a
dynamic rather than static process (Shipp and Fried, 2014).
Proposition 5. Utilizing feedback, teleworkers adjust their crafting to closely align their
needs satisfaction and desired states of work–nonwork balance and
performance

Discussion
In contrast to extant telework research, which is primarily cross-sectional, our model offers a
more accurate illustration of how telework behavior unfolds over time to impact work–
nonwork balance and performance, depicting telework as a dynamic, iterative process
wherein teleworkers satisfy psychological needs by engaging in crafting behavior to achieve
positive telework outcomes. We suggest that teleworkers continuously use internal feedback
from the self and external feedback from work and nonwork role partners to compare actual
and desired outcomes, assess need satisfaction and recraft telework behavior as needed.
PR Research implications
52,3 Our model carries several implications. First, we demonstrate a need for within-person
studies to follow teleworkers over time, linking their cognitive, physical and relational job
crafting to changes in need satisfaction, work–nonwork balance and performance. The
trajectory of adapting to telework over time may show an initial slow adjustment, which
levels off, or trajectories may vary based on individual differences. Longitudinal studies with
many observations are required to identify such trajectories (Roe, 2014). Second, we theorize
680 about between-person differences in career stages, telework experience, time management
skills and polychronicity that impact within-person changes over time (Shipp and Fried,
2014). We urge researchers to examine how these differences moderate the relationship
between crafting and need satisfaction.
Future research might also examine how the source of feedback relates to teleworker
performance, work–nonwork balance and need satisfaction. For example, some feedback
sources (e.g. spouse, peers or supervisor) may be more salient to teleworkers; teleworkers may
receive contradictory feedback from different role partners; and different sources of feedback
may vary in importance over time.
Our model is also relevant to job crafting by virtual teams. Indeed, virtual teams and
teleworkers are similar in their technology dependence and geographic dispersion, although
they differ in level of analysis (Raghuram et al., 2019). Research could explore how virtual team
members engage in crafting to foster better teamwork over time. For example, crafting
relationships among virtual team members is important to create team mental models based on
shared tacit knowledge and enhance team performance (Maynard and Gilson, 2014). Without
face-to-face meetings, virtual team members may need more frequent communication with rich
communication media. Virtual team members may engage in cognitive crafting to affirm their
identities as capable and committed team members, for example, by holding virtual “happy
hours.” Such self-verification can improve within-team trust (O’Leary and Cummings, 2007;
Schaubroeck and Yu, 2017). Lastly, physical crafting to manage boundaries is critical when team
members are temporally distributed. Time zone differences and needs for synchronous
communication (Schaubroeck and Yu, 2017) may require working during family time at home,
impairing work–nonwork balance (Raghuram et al., 2019).
Crafting and need satisfaction may require special attention for managers who telework,
due to the impact of leader behavior on subordinates (Golden and Fromen, 2011). Telework
may require changes in leadership style. For example, teleworking managers may need to
develop unique skills in mentoring, task delegation, coordination and information exchange
(Golden and Fromen, 2011; Purvanova and Kenda, 2018). The crafting-need satisfaction
relationship for leaders who telework may be influenced by leader-employee trust (Raghuram
and Fang, 2014) or by team cohesion and collective efficacy (Kozlowski and Chao, 2012). Our
model can be extended to include these and other factors that influence telework among
specific occupational groups like managers.
The model may also apply to e-lancers with some adaptation to capture unique features of
their work. Unlike traditional telework as part of an employee–employer relationship,
contract work involves a triangular relationship between worker, requester (organization or
individual consumer) and an online platform (in case of an e-lancer) (Aguinis and Lawal, 2013;
Breidbach et al., 2014; Meijerink and Keegan, 2019). This may create liability and trust issues,
requiring additional effort to establish professional networks (relationship crafting) or
allocate tasks (physical crafting). Future research could examine the relationship between
crafting, need satisfaction and outcomes (e.g. business growth) that are relevant for e-lancers
and other contemporary remote work arrangements.
Our model draws from role-based job crafting, which is a motivational approach to job
design (Wrzesniewski and Dutton, 2001) that can explain the reciprocal relationship between
needs satisfaction and telework crafting. Research might consider other approaches such as
resource crafting (Bruning and Campion, 2018; de Bloom et al., 2020), which involves an Crafting
individual’s strategy to acquire resources, avoid job demands, increase efficiency and telework
conserve resources (Tims et al., 2012), as an alternate lens into telework crafting.
Finally, in light of contemporary discourses on telework amid crises such as COVID-19, we
urge researchers to consider societal disruptions that can impact employee desire and ability to
craft telework to meet their needs. These include macro stressors and crises associated with war
and terrorism, extreme weather conditions, natural disasters and infectious disease outbreaks
(Donnelly and Proctor-Thomson, 2015). For example, after the attacks on the World Trade 681
Center on September 11, 2001, companies whose offices were located in the disaster area (e.g.
Morgan Stanley) had to rapidly transition to remote work; a similar approach was taken by
AT&T in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina (Roitz and Jackson, 2006).

Practical implications
Our model has practical implications for teleworkers and their employers. Intervention studies
could focus on teleworkers’ job crafting behavior. While not all teleworkers make conscious
choices about managing the work–nonwork boundary, interventions in form of training and
telework policies could encourage them to experiment with different forms of boundary
management, reflect on the effectiveness of each strategy and take self-assessments to identify
their preferred approach (Kossek, 2016). Changes in boundary management strategies could be
tracked over time and linked to changes in need satisfaction, work–nonwork balance and
performance outcomes.
Employers may prepare employees to telework and provide support to translate teleworker
job crafting behavior into need satisfaction and positive outcomes. For example, firms can
provide communication technology (availability, support) or a telework-buddy (experienced
teleworker mentor) to boost the crafting-need satisfaction association. As firms like Amazon hire
customer service employees to support increased demand during COVID-19, experienced
teleworkers can help these new remote employees with advice about effective remote work.

Conclusion
Addressing calls for understanding the dynamism of telework, we offer a model for crafting
telework that illustrates cognitive, physical and relational changes teleworkers make to foster
need satisfaction, work–nonwork balance and job performance (see Tietze et al., 2009). We
discuss time-related individual differences as contingencies to within-person changes.
Finally, we incorporate the role of feedback – originating from others and one’s own
evaluation – in the iterative process of learning to telework over time. Our model can direct
future research to extend our understanding of telework and job crafting and guide
practitioners to design interventions to help achieve desired telework outcomes.

References
Aguinis, H. and Lawal, S.O. (2013), “eLancing: a review and research agenda for bridging the science–
practice gap”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 23, pp. 6-17.
Ariely, D. and Carmon, Z. (2000), “Gestalt characteristics of experiences: the defining features of
summarized events”, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, Vol. 13, pp. 191-201.
Ashforth, B., Kreiner, G. and Fugate, M. (2000), “All in a day’s work: boundaries and micro role
transitions”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25, pp. 472-491.
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 Behavior, Vol. 23, pp. 383-400.
PR Bartel, C.A., Wrzesniewski, A. and Wiesenfeld, B.M. (2012), “Knowing where you stand: physical
isolation, perceived respect, and organizational identification among virtual employees”,
52,3 Organization Science, Vol. 23, pp. 743-757.
Berg, J.M., Dutton, J.E. and Wrzesniewski, A. (2008), What Is Job Crafting and Why Does It Matter?,
University of Michigan Ross School of Business, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Biron, M. and Veldhoven, M. (2016), “When control becomes a liability rather than an asset:
comparing home and office days among part-time teleworkers”, Journal of Organizational
682 Behavior, Vol. 37, pp. 1317-1337.
Borman, W.C. and Motowidlo, S.J. (1997), “Task performance and contextual performance: the
meaning for personnel selection research”, Human Performance, Vol. 10, pp. 99-109.
Breidbach, C., Brodie, R. and Hollebeek, L. (2014), “Beyond virtuality: from engagement platforms to
engagement ecosystems”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 24, pp. 592-611.
Bruning, P.F. and Campion, M.A. (2018), “A role-resource approach-avoidance model of job crafting: a
multimethod integration and extension of job crafting theory”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 61, pp. 499-522.
Casper, W.J., Vaziri, H., Wayne, J.H., DeHauw, S. and Greenhaus, J. (2018), “The jingle-jangle of work-
nonwork balance: a comprehensive and meta-analytic review of its meaning and measurement”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 103, pp. 182-214.
Cohen, S. (2004), “Social relationships and health”, American Psychologist, Vol. 59, pp. 676-684.
de Bloom, J., Vaziri, H., Tay, L. and Kujanp€a€a, M. (2020), “An identity-based integrative needs model of
crafting: crafting within and across life domains”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 105 No. 12,
pp. 1423-1446.
Demerouti, E. and Bakker, A.B. (2011), “The job demands-resources model: challenges for future
research”, SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, Vol. 37, pp. 1-9.
Derks, D., Bakker, A.B., Peters, P. and Van Wingerden, P. (2016), “Work-related smartphone use,
work–family conflict and family role performance: the role of segmentation preference”, Human
Relations, Vol. 69 No. 5, pp. 1045-1068.
Donnelly, N. and Proctor-Thomson, S.B. (2015), “Disrupted work: home-based teleworking in the
aftermath of a natural disaster”, New Technology, Work and Employment, Vol. 30, pp. 47-61.
Fenner, G.H. and Renn, R.W. (2004), “Technology-assisted supplemental work: construct definition
and a research framework”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 43, pp. 179-200.
Gajendran, R.S. and Harrison, D.A. (2007), “The good, the bad, and the unknown about
telecommuting: meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92, pp. 1524-1541.
Gajendran, R.S., Harrison, D.A. and Delaney-Klinger, K. (2015), “Are telecommuters remotely good
citizens? Unpacking telecommuting’s effects on performance via i-deals and job resources”,
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 68, pp. 353-393.
George, J.M. and Jones, G.R. (2001), “Towards a process model of individual change in organizations”,
Human Relations, Vol. 54, pp. 419-444.
Golden, T.D. and Fromen, A. (2011), “Does it matter where your manager works? Comparing
managerial work mode (traditional, telework, virtual) across subordinate work experiences and
outcomes”, Human Relations, Vol. 64, pp. 1451-1475.
Golden, T.D. and Gajendran, R.S. (2019), “Unpacking the role of a telecommuter’s job in their
performance: examining job complexity, problem solving, interdependence, and social support”,
Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 55-69.
Golden, T.D. and Raghuram, S. (2010), “Teleworker knowledge sharing and the role of altered
relational and technological interactions”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 31,
pp. 1061-1085.
Haag, M. (2020), “Manhattan faces a reckoning if working from home becomes a norm”, The New York Crafting
Times, May, available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/12/nyregion/coronavirus-work-
from-home.html. telework
Hill, E.J., Miller, B.C., Weiner, S.P. and Colihan, J. (1998), “Influences of the virtual office on aspects of
work and work/life balance”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 667-683.
House, J.S. (1981), Work Stress and Social Support, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.
Ibarra, H. (1999), “Provisional selves: experimenting with image and identity in professional 683
adaptation”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 44, pp. 764-791.
Klein, H.J. (1989), “An integrated control theory model of work motivation”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 14, pp. 150-172.
Kossek, E.E. (2016), “Managing work-life boundaries in the digital age”, Organizational Dynamics,
Vol. 45, pp. 258-270.
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, pp. 347-367.
Kozlowski, S.W.J. and Chao, G.T. (2012), “The dynamics of emergence: cognition and cohesion in work
teams”, Managerial and Decision Economics, Vol. 33, pp. 335-354.
Kramer, A. and Kramer, K.Z. (2020), “The potential impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on occupational
status, work from home, and occupational mobility”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 119.
Kreiner, G.E. (2006), “Consequences of work-home segmentation or integration: a person-environment
fit perspective”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 485-507.
Kreiner, G.E. and Sheep, M.L. (2009), “Growing pains and gains: framing identity dynamics as
opportunities for identity growth”, Exploring Positive Identities and Organizations, Psychology
Press, Chicago, pp. 47-70.
Kurland, N.B. and Pelled, L.H. (2000), “Passing the word: toward a model of gossip and power in the
workplace”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25, pp. 428-439.
Kurtessis, J.N., Eisenberger, R., Ford, M.T., Buffardi, L.C., Stewart, K.A. and Adis, C.S. (2015),
“Perceived organizational support: a meta-analytic evaluation of organizational support
theory”, Journal of Management, Vol. 43, pp. 1854-1884.
Li, J., Burch, T.C. and Lee, T.W. (2017), “Intra-individual variability in job complexity over time:
examining the effect of job complexity trajectory on employee job strain”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 38, pp. 671-691.
Limburg, D.O. (2003), “Learning to telework: self-reflection and learning in the process of introducing
telework in an organization”, in Rapp, B. and Jackson, P. (Eds), Organization and Work Beyond
2000, Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg, pp. 117-133.
Maruyama, T. and Tietze, S. (2012), “From anxiety to assurance: concerns and outcomes of telework”,
Personnel Review, Vol. 41, pp. 450-469.
Maynard, M.T. and Gilson, L.L. (2014), “The role of shared mental model development in
understanding virtual team effectiveness”, Group and Organization Management,
Vol. 39, pp. 3-32.
McNall, L.A., Masuda, A.D. and Nicklin, J.M. (2009), “Flexible work arrangements, job satisfaction, and
turnover intentions: the mediating role of work-to-family enrichment”, The Journal of
Psychology, Vol. 144, pp. 61-81.
Meijerink, J.G. and Keegan, A. (2019), “Conceptualizing human resource management in the gig economy:
toward a platform ecosystem perspective”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 34, pp. 214-232.
Mikula, A. (2020), Telecommuting Survey Reveals Potential for Greater Shift towards Remote Work
after COVID-19 Pandemic, Pioneer Institute, available at: /https://pioneerinstitute.org/
download/telecommuting-survey-reveals-potential-for-greater-shift-towards-remote-work-after-
covid-19-pandemic/.
PR Nippert-Eng, C. (1996), Home and Work: Negotiating Boundaries through Everyday Life, University of
Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.
52,3
Olson-Buchanan, J.B. and Boswell, W.R. (2006), “Blurring boundaries: correlates of integration and
segmentation between work and nonwork”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 68, pp. 432-445.
O’Leary, M.B. and Cummings, J.N. (2007), “The spatial, temporal, and configurational characteristics
of geographic dispersion in teams”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 31, pp. 433-452.
684 Parker, S.K. (2014), “Beyond motivation: job and work design for development, health, ambidexterity,
and more”, Annual Review of Psychology, Chicago, Vol. 65, pp. 661-691.
Picot, A., Reichwald, R. and Wigand, R. (2008), “Overcoming location boundaries: telecooperation and
virtual enterprises”, in Information, Organization and Management, Springer, Berlin, pp. 317-367.
Postmes, T., Spears, R. and Lea, M. (1998), “Breaching or building social boundaries? Side-effects of
computer mediated communication”, Communication Research, Vol. 25, pp. 689-715.
Purvanova, R.K. and Kenda, R. (2018), “Paradoxical virtual leadership: reconsidering virtuality
through a paradox lens”, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 43, pp. 752-786.
Raghuram, S. (1996), “Knowledge creation in the telework context”, International Journal of
Technology Management, Vol. 11, pp. 859-870.
Raghuram, S. (2013), “Identities on call: impact of impression management on Indian call agents’
identities”, Human Relations, Vol. 66, pp. 1471-1496.
Raghuram, S. and Fang, D. (2014), “Telecommuting and the role of supervisory power in China”, Asia
Pacific Journal of Management, Vol. 31, pp. 523-547.
Raghuram, S., Wiesenfeld, B. and Garud, R. (2003), “Technology enabled work: the role of self-efficacy
in determining telecommuter adjustment and structuring behavior”, Journal of Vocational
Behavior, Vol. 63, pp. 180-198.
Raghuram, S., Wiesenfeld, B., Garud, R. and Gupta, V. (2001), “Factors contributing to virtual work
adjustment”, Journal of Management, Vol. 27, pp. 383-405.
Raghuram, S., Hill, N.S., Gibbs, J.L. and Maruping, L.M. (2019), “Virtual work: bridging research
clusters”, Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 13, pp. 308-341.
Roe, R.A. (2014), “Time, performance and motivation”, in Shipp, A.J. and Fried, Y. (Eds), Time and
Work, Volume 1: How Time Impacts Individuals, Psychology Press, New York, pp. 63-100.
Roitz, J. and Jackson, E. (2006), “AT&T adds business continuity to the long list of telework’s
advantages”, Journal of Organizational Excellence, Vol. 25, pp. 3-12.
Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2000), “Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation,
social development, and well-being”, American Psychologist, Vol. 55, pp. 68-78.
Salancik, G.R. and Pfeffer, J. (1978), “A social information processing approach to job attitudes and
task design”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 23, pp. 224-253.
Schaubroeck, J.M. and Yu, A. (2017), “When does virtuality help or hinder teams? Core team
characteristics as contingency factors”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 27,
pp. 635-647.
Shipp, A.J. and Cole, M.S. (2015), “Time in individual-level organizational studies: what is it, how is it
used, and why isn’t it exploited more often?”, Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 2, pp. 237-260.
Shipp, A.J. and Fried, Y. (Eds), (2014), “Time research in management: using temporal ambassadors to
translate ideas into reality”, in Time and Work, Volume 1: How Time Impacts Individuals,
Psychology Press, New York, pp. 1-10.
Skyrme, D. (2007), Knowledge Networking: Creating the Collaborative Enterprise, Routledge, London.
Slocombe, T.E. and Bluedorn, A.C. (1999), “Organizational behavior implications of the congruence
between preferred polychronicity and experienced work-unit polychronicity”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 20, pp. 75-99.
Sonnentag, S. (2012), “Psychological detachment from work during leisure time: the benefits of Crafting
mentally disengaging from work”, Current Directions in Psychological Science, Vol. 21,
pp. 114-118. telework
Sonnentag, S., Pundt, A. and Albrecht, A.G. (2014), “Temporal perspectives on job stress”, in Shipp,
A.J. and Fried, Y. (Eds), Time and Work: How Time Impacts Individuals (Current Issues in Work
and Organizational Psychology), Psychology Press, Vol. 1, pp. 111-140.
Stets, J.E. and Serpe, R.T. (2013), “Identity theory”, Handbook of Social Psychology, Springer,
Dordrecht, pp. 31-60. 685
Streitfeld, D. (2020), “White-collar companies race to be last to return to the office”, New York Times,
May 8, available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/08/technology/coronavirus-work-from-
home.html.
Stryker, S. and Burke, P. (2000), “The past, present, and future of an identity theory”, Social Psychology
Quarterly, Vol. 63, pp. 284-297.
Sturges, J. (2012), “Crafting a balance between work and home”, Human Relations, Vol. 65, pp. 1539-1559.
Swann, W.B. Jr, Stein-Seroussi, A. and Giesler, B. (1992), “Why people self-verify”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 62, pp. 392-401.
Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1986), “The social identity theory of intergroup behavior”, in Worchel, S.
and Austin, W.G. (Eds), Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 2nd ed., Nelson-Hall,
Chicago, pp. 7-24.
Thatcher, S.M. and Zhu, X. (2006), “Changing identities in a changing workplace: identification,
identity enactment, self-verification, and telecommuting”, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 31, pp. 1076-1088.
Tietze, S. (2002), “When ‘work’ comes ‘home’: coping strategies of teleworkers and their families”,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 41, pp. 385-396.
Tietze, S. and Musson, G. (2005), “Recasting the home-work relationship: a case of mutual adjustment?”,
Organization Studies, Vol. 26, pp. 1331-1352.
Tietze, S., Musson, G. and Scurry, T. (2009), “Homebased work: a review of research into themes,
directions and implications”, Personnel Review, Vol. 38, pp. 585-604.
Tims, M., Bakker, A.B. and Derks, D. (2012), “Development and validation of the job crafting scale”,
Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 80, pp. 173-186.
Vogel, R.M., Rodell, J.B. and Lynch, J.W. (2016), “Engaged and productive misfits: how job crafting
and leisure activity mitigate the negative effects of value incongruence”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 59, pp. 1561-1584.
Wellman, B. and Wortley, S. (1990), “Different strokes from different folks: community ties and social
support”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 96, pp. 558-588.
Wessels, C., Schippers, M.C., Stegmann, S., Bakker, A.B., van Baalen, P.J. and Proper, K.I. (2019),
“Fostering flexibility in the new world of work: a model of time-spatial job crafting”, Frontiers
in Psychology, Vol. 10, pp. 1-13.
Westaby, J.D., Pfaff, D.L. and Redding, N. (2014), “Psychology and social networks: a dynamic
network theory perspective”, American Psychologist, Vol. 69, pp. 269-284.
Whapshott, R. and Mallett, O. (2011), “The spatial implications of homeworking: a Lefebvrian
approach to the rewards and challenges of home-based work”, Organization, Vol. 19, pp. 63-79.
Wheatley, D. (2012), “Work-life balance, travel-to-work, and the dual career household”, Personnel
Review, Vol. 41, pp. 831-831.
Wiesenfeld, B.M., Raghuram, S. and Garud, R. (2001), “Organizational identification among virtual
workers: the role of need for affiliation and perceived work-based social support”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 27, pp. 213-229.
PR Wrzesniewski, A. and Dutton, J.E. (2001), “Crafting a job: revisioning employees as active crafters of
their work”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26, pp. 179-201.
52,3
Zammuto, R.F., Griffith, T.L., Majchrzak, A., Dougherty, D.J. and Faraj, S. (2007), “Information
technology and the changing fabric of organization”, Organization Science, Vol. 18, pp. 749-762.
Zhang, X. and Venkatesh, V. (2013), “Explaining employee job performance: the role of online and
offline workplace communication networks”, MIS Quarterly, September, pp. 695-722.
686
Corresponding author
Sumita Raghuram can be contacted at: sumita.raghuram@sjsu.edu

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