2016.deleede - New Ways of Working and Leadership - An Empirical Study in The Service Industry

New Ways of Working Practices
New Ways of Working and Leadership: An Empirical Study in the Service Industry
Jan de Leede Paddy Heuver
Article information:
To cite this document: Jan de Leede Paddy Heuver . "New Ways of Working and Leadership:
An Empirical Study in the Service Industry" In New Ways of Working Practices. Published
online: 16 Dec 2016; 49-71.
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S1877-636120160000016004
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 03:26 18 December 2016 (PT)
Downloaded on: 18 December 2016, At: 03:26 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:401304 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our
Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for
and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors
for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The
company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series
volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer
resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative
for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Chapter 3
New Ways of Working and Leadership: An

Empirical Study in the Service Industry
Jan de Leede and Paddy Heuver
Abstract
New Ways of Working seems to change the leadership agenda. Activity-based working
and home-based work lead to different behaviors of employees. Supervising styles
will change from command-and-control toward goal-setting-and-trust. This chapter
describes the trend and provides new data on the actual use and effectiveness of
these new supervision styles. It appears to be a mix of different leadership styles,
such as leading by vision, setting targets and control on output, providing trust.
Keywords: New ways of working; organizational commitment; leadership;

empowerment; trust, steering on output; research paper
Introduction
In the last decades, how, when and where we work has changed more than any time
in history which led to the rise of new ways of working (NWW). More and more
organizations see the potential opportunities of implementing forms of NWW. In
this chapter we have the same definition of NWW like in the Introduction “New
Ways of Working are practices in which employees are able to work independent of
time, place and organization, supported by a flexible work environment which is facili-
tated by information technologies.” The first element of this concept is the core of
NWW namely working time- and place-independent. The second element of the
concept is the flexible work environment, like open offices or working mobile or at
home. The essential part is that these working environments must be appropriate
New Ways of Working Practices: Antecedents and Outcomes

Advanced Series in Management, Volume 16, 49 71
Copyright r 2017 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 1877-6361/doi:10.1108/S1877-636120160000016004
50 Jan de Leede and Paddy Heuver
for NWW. The third element includes unlimited access and connectivity through IT
(Baane, Houtkamp, & Knotter, 2010; Mitchell, 1995; Negroponte, 1995; Van
Breukelen, Makkenze, & Waterreus, 2014). Specific styles of leadership and the
autonomy of employees to manage their own work and work relations (Baane
et al., 2010) can be considered as preconditions of NWW.
This chapter deals with one of those preconditions, namely leadership. The
attributed effects in behavior such as empowerment, more organizational commit-
ment, higher trust relations make implementing NWW beneficial for organizations.
Leadership plays an important role in the behavior dimension since NWW and its
vision require alternative ways to manage employees by indicating the direction,
coaching, and to make them feel trusted, respected and noticing a concern for
employees’ welfare (Bass, 1985; De Leede & Kraijenbrink, 2014; Dirks & Ferrin,
2002; Dorfman et al., 1997). To make NWW a success, the role of the leader is
essential in propagating NWW by informing and enthusing the employees. Also,
NWW can be described as a process of change. Leadership (styles) are related to
coping with change (Kotter, 1996). In short, there is no discussion on the impor-
tance of leadership in NWW.
Two pathways on leadership and NWW are explored in this chapter. The first is
to identify the new leadership behaviors that fit with these NWW practices. The
second pathway is to explore which of these new leadership styles are contributing
to the effectiveness of NWW practices. Therefore, for both pathways we develop a
theoretical framework on leadership competencies that support NWW practices
and present empirical data on these leadership competencies and their outcomes.
The main research question of this study is: “To what extent does leadership contri-
bute to the organizational outcomes of NWW?” It will help us forward in fully
understanding leadership and leadership competencies in the context of NWW.
Also, it will strengthen the literature by providing evidence of the organizational
outcomes when implementing (components of) NWW. To be more specific, the pur-
pose of this chapter is to examine if leadership moderates the relationship between
NWW and the outcome of organizational commitment. In this chapter we present
empirical data on the relationship of leadership competencies as a moderator of the
success of NWW.
The Influence of Leadership Behaviors on NWW Practices

and Their Outcomes
To develop a theoretical framework on leadership and NWW practices, it is neces-

sary to operationalize our definition of New Ways of Working (NWW). We con-
tinue with the observation of the “Introduction” that it is important to disentangle
the concept of NWW into concepts that have been researched before. The
NWW practices can be comprised of four main components that refer to existing
practices.
New Ways of Working and Leadership 51
Components of NWW
NWW is divided into four components of NWW, namely (1) Teleworking, (2) Flexible
Workplaces at Work, (3) Flexible Working Hours, and (4) IT.
Teleworking is defined as “a form of organizing and/or performing work, using
information technology, in the context of an employment contract/relationship,
where work, which could also be performed at the employer’s premises, is carried
out away from those premises on a regular basis” (EFILWC, 2010, p. 2). Flexible
Workplaces at Work is defined as a “continuum of discretion concerning how
frequently employees conduct their work away from the main work site” (Thompson,
2011, p. 6). It involves flexibility in the use of the location where work is conducted.
This concept addresses not only all aspects of the physical work environment such as
premises and facilities but also the work environment at home or elsewhere. This is
characterized by an offices concept aimed at flexible work, work areas furnished
according to concept of “activity-related work,” inspiring office environments which
are set up as a home base and meeting place, and an open network environment that
brings the “the outside world” inside (Baane et al., 2010). Flexible Working Hours is
defined as “having the ability to schedule flexible starting and quitting times, some-
times with a core-hours requirement” but also to have the flexibility in taking days
off (Eaton, 2003, p. 146). The last component is IT and stands for “Information
Technology.” Information Technologies encompass a broad array of communication
media and devices which link information systems and people including e-mail, voice
conferencing, video conferencing, groupware and collaboration tools, social media,
corporate intranets, personal digital assistants and so on. The most important charac-
teristics in this dimension are real-time availability and accessibility of information for
all, technology that adjusts to the user, implementing web 2.0 software and the use of
smartphones and laptops to empower employees to work together virtually (Baane
et al., 2010).
Outcomes: Organizational Commitment
Why are organizations implementing NWW? What are the benefits, or in other
words, the outcomes of NWW for organizations? As mentioned in the introduc-
tion, there are many potential outcomes that can be achieved by implementing
NWW. In our empirical study it was not possible to include all possible out-
comes, such as productivity, customer satisfaction, real estate costs, commitment,
work-life balance, social cohesion. We had to focus on one outcome, due to rea-
sons of feasibility of the research, availability of useful data and also because
of length of the questionnaire. This chapter focuses on the potential outcome
organizational commitment. It is one those central outcomes of NWW, see for
example, Brummelhuis et al. (2012).
Organizational commitment refers “to a person’s affective reactions to character-
istics of his employing organization. It is concerned with feelings of attachment
to the goals and values of the organization, one’s role in relation to this, and
attachment to the organization for its own sake rather than for its strictly instru-
mental value” (Cook & Wall, 1980, p. 40). According to Mowday, Steers, and
Porter (1979) it is seen as the relative strength to which an employee identifies
itself with the organization. Many researchers have suggested that employers who
provide work-life benefits, including flexibility policies, reap the rewards of higher
employee commitment (Dalton & Mesch, 1990; Friedman & Greenhaus, 2000;
Grover & Crooker, 1995; Rodgers, 1992; Thompson, Beauvais, & Lyness, 1999).
The literature provides different views about how NWW components (teleworking,
flexible workplaces at work, flexible working hours, and IT) can lead to more orga-
nizational commitment of employees. The following subsections will examine the
possible relations between NWW components and organizational commitment in
more detail.
Teleworking and Organizational Commitment
Organizations that provide employees with the flexibility to work from home are
providing a positive signal, visibly demonstrating their trust and support for
employees’ well-being. This signal from organizations should, in turn, generate
greater psychological commitment and a lowered tendency to quit (Rhoades &
Eisenberger, 2002). Hunton and Norman (2010) found a higher commitment among
medical coders who could choose from different telework options. Remarkably,
those who could only choose to work from home (and not from satellite offices or
from downtown offices) were not more committed compared with the control
group. Kelliher and Anderson (2009) reported similar findings on flexible employ-
ees who showed higher job satisfaction, higher organizational commitment along
with higher work intensification. Golden and Veiga (2008) confirmed the finding of
a positive relationship between telework and organizational commitment. They
stated that employees who work in an intense virtual work could lead to more or
less commitment. The level of commitment was influenced by the quality of the
relationship between the manager and the employee, wherein low quality led to a
decrease and high quality led to an increase of organizational commitment.
Whereas Golden (2006) used a sample of 393 teleworkers in one organization and
found that teleworking is positively related to organizational commitment (β = .17,
p < .001). However, employees who choose to telecommute may also find their loy-
alty and commitment being questioned by managers (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007).
For example, the study of Harpaz (2002) stated that teleworking can possibly harm
the organizational commitment since from a distance it is harder to control, instill
motivation, commitment, and influence.
Flexible Workplaces at Work and Organizational Commitment
In the last decade, having Flexible Workplaces at Work has received more attention
since organizations list workplace flexibility as a potential benefit for both employ-
ees and the organization. The study of Pitt-Catsouphes and Matz-Costa (2008)
provides empirical evidence about the positive relationship between flexible work-
places and organizational commitment. Their study suggests that flexibility fit, that
is, the degree to which flexibility options meet the employees’ needs, is a positive
predictor of engagement. Most studies on flexible workplaces “have examined the
availability or utilization of different flexible work options assuming a ‘more is
better’ perspective” (Pitt-Catsouphes & Matz-Costa, 2008, p. 220). However, they
consider that it is better to conceptualize it as a fit. For example, an organization
offers a broad range of flexible work options, but if these options do not meet the
needs of the employees, or if these options do not fit the tasks and activities, they
are fruitless. The results of their study confirmed these assumptions. “Flexibility fit
is a powerful positive predictor of engagement for all employees, and it may be a
more powerful predictor of engagement for older workers” (Pitt-Catsouphes &
Matz-Costa, 2008, p. 225).

We know that distance matters, since the classic study of Allen (1977) who mea-
sured the frequency of communication of employees in seven organizations that
showed that working at a distance of 30 meters apart from each other did not differ
from working 3,000 kilometers apart from each other. The key issue however is the
promise of NWW that distance is of less importance. In NWW some advocates talk
about the integration of the physical, virtual and mental environment (Veldhoen,
2005). This integration can take place in shared workspaces and open offices; here,
non-dedicated workspaces are the common practice, in which workers may choose
their own workspaces for that day or part of the working hours. The workspaces at
the office will change into meeting space. However, many problems with open
offices have been documented, such as noise, lack of privacy and other distractions.
On the other hand, the traditional office lay-out with enclosed and private offices
may hamper communication, teamwork and flexible use of space. A study on the
effects of open offices found that more personal control over the physical work-
space, such as adjustment, and easy access to meeting places led to higher perceived
group cohesiveness and job satisfaction (Lee & Brand, 2005).
Flexible Working Hours and Organizational Commitment
Perceptions of flexible working hours may increase employees’ loyalty and satisfac-
tion due to positive feelings associated with working for an organization that visibly
cares about the well-being of its employees. Increased commitment can be realized
because of several reasons. First, the individual may perceive the organization’s
offering of flexible working hours as representing the organization’s concern for
work and family. Employees may see this as an aspect of the psychological contact
since their ability to balance multiple responsibilities is congruent with individual
values about work and family (i.e., “this organization cares about people”). Second,
flexible working hours allow individuals to feel increased control over their lives
due to the opportunity to work during times more suited to personal needs or
personal biological clocks (not everyone is most productive from 9.00 a.m. to
5.00 p.m.). Third, having flexible working hours available improves employees’
perceptions about their employer. It also increases employees’ overall positive feel-
ing toward the organization which impacts organizational commitment. Fourth,
employees often engage in social comparison processes (Adams, 1965) and may
compare their situation to peers in other jobs and/or organizations that do not offer
flexible work programs. Such comparisons should increase the value of the employ-
ees’ psychological contract with their employer. The studies of Scandura and
Lankau (1997) and Ng, Butts, Vandenberg, Dejoy, and Wilson (2006) provide
empirical evidence about the positive relationship between flexible working hours
and organizational commitment. For example, Ng et al. (2006) researched 21 retail
centers and found that work schedule flexibility had positive effects on organiza-
tional commitment. This is also underlined by the study of Lyness, Gornick, Stone,
and Grotto (2012), who studied the ability of workers to control their work
schedules and hours among industrialized countries wherein they used data of 21
countries.
In response to the offering of flexible working hours, employees may reciprocate
with greater loyalty to the employer and better morale. Based upon the idea that
flexible working hours represent an aspect of the contract between employees and
employers and the previous literature, it is expected that flexible working hours are
positively related to organizational commitment (loyalty to employer). Again, it is
not only the availability of flexible hours per se, rather the degree of control of
employees over these flexible hours (Nijp, Beckers, Geurts, Tucker, & Kompier,
2012).
IT and Organizational Commitment
Organizations started to implement NWW practices since the advances in IT. IT has
enabled the possibility of distributed work. Nowadays, it is possible for employees to
work together while temporally and spatially decoupled from one another
(Wiesenfeld, Raghuram, & Garud, 1999). However, these changes raise new chal-
lenges for organizations. For example, IT offers the freedom to work anytime, any-
place and anyhow but this may also lead to a weakening of the ties that bind
employees of an organization to each other and to their organization (Wiesenfeld
et al., 1999). Their results also suggested that organizational commitment was higher
among highly virtual workers than among less virtual workers. IT is of more impor-
tance for virtual workers since by using IT they create and sustain their organiza-
tional identification. This is also underlined by the studies of Meyer and Allen (1997)
and Rodwell, Kienzle, and Shadur (1998). Their studies showed that “information-
sharing practices favor the internalization of organizational goals and values by
employees, enhance feelings of mutual trust, and make individuals feel important to
the company” (Paré & Tremblay, 2007, p. 329).
In line with the configurational approach, we might assume that certain combi-
nations of the NWW components can increase the positive effects on organizational
commitment. Before hypotheses are formulated, we first want to discuss the influ-
ence of leadership on the relationship between NWW and commitment.
Leadership
The development and implementation of NWW practices can be described as an

organizational change. In response to the changes that come along with NWW,
organizational design, structures and processes need to become adaptive and more
flexible (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002). Also, the behavior of employees is evolving into
more empowered, responsible and innovative behavioral styles (Baane et al., 2010;
Veldhoen, 2005). One of the roles of leadership is to manage these changes by
inspiring, coaching, facilitating and directing employees and is also broadly recog-
nized as a critical success factor (Howell & Avolio, 1992; Yukl, 2002). Leaders have
a strong influence on the work behavior of employees (Yukl, 2002). Therefore, this
study will elaborate on leadership.
Leadership is extensively discussed in the literature and has various definitions.

Ciulla (1995) listed the definitions of leadership from different periods which shows
the moments of the definitions over time. In the 1920s, leadership was defined as
the ability to impress. During the 1970s, leadership was defined in terms of discre-
tionary influence which refers to the behavior of the leader. Nowadays, the emphasis
has moved to achieving organizational goals (Hayes, 2014; Winston & Patterson,
2006). The definitions of leadership vary in their connotation over the years.
However, nowadays the field of leadership not only focuses on the leader but also
on the peers, supervisors, followers, work/setting context and culture (Avolio,
Walumbwa, & Weber, 2009). Leadership can no longer be described as an indivi-
dual characteristic but is shown in several models as strategic, relational, shared,
dyadic, complex social dynamic and global (Avolio et al., 2009; Yukl, 2002). In con-
clusion, many academics define leadership as “some kind of process, act, or influ-
ence that in some way gets people to do something” (Ciulla, 1995, p. 12).
Leadership Styles
Managers are in the best setting to provide leadership that is needed to ensure suc-
cessful work (Kotter, 1990). Early work on leadership styles proposed that some
leadership styles were superior to others (Hayes, 2014). Later researchers proposed
theories that there is not one leadership style which is best in all circumstances but
the most effective leadership style depends on situational factors such as organiza-
tional context, employees and the task (Adair, 1973; Fiedler, 1967; Hersey &
Blanchard, 1977).
Nowadays, there are various leadership styles such as authentic leadership, trans-
formational leadership, and new-genre leadership. In the context of NWW prac-
tices, such as working at home, virtual teams, flexible hours, flexible and open
offices, we think e-leadership fits best to the concept of NWW. E-leadership is
defined as “leadership where individuals or groups are geographically dispersed and
interactions are mediated by technology” (Avolio et al., 2009, p. 440) which exactly
fits the core of NWW: working time- and place-independent supported by IT.
E-leadership is elaborated as a leadership that fits with NWW. According to Hayes
(2014), what leaders do can have a strong effect on the behavior of employees
to make NWW a success. Therefore, three leadership competencies of leaders
which have an influence on achieving the organizational outcome of NWW are
described. These three leadership competences are mentioned frequently in the
NWW literature.
Leadership Competence 1: Empowerment Empowerment “is a leadership strategy

that is concerned to provide subordinates with the power to do their work fully”
(Bryman, Stephens, & Campo, 1996, p. 358). In contemporary leadership literature,
empowerment is viewed as a consequence of the behavior of leaders or it is viewed
as an approach to the behavior of the leader in its own right (Bryman et al., 1996).
Avolio, Zhu, and Koh (2004) studied the mediating effect of empowerment on the
relationship between transformational leadership and organizational commitment

on a sample of 520 nurses in Singapore. The results showed that empowerment
mediated the relationship between transformational leadership and organizational
commitment. This is also underlined by the study of Bogler and Somech (2004)
who stated that empowerment is a significant predictor of organizational commit-
ment. According to Hayes (2014), leaders need to remove the barriers and create
conditions that will empower people to deliver change. In the context of NWW,
barriers might be lack of access to relevant information, misaligned performance
measures and other incentives that reward employees to maintain the old ways of
working.
According to these theories and the findings, we may assume that the presence of
empowerment has a positive relationship with organizational commitment.
Hypothesis 1. Empowerment will moderate the relationship between NWW and

organizational commitment in such a way that the relationship between NWW
and organizational commitment will be more positive.
Leadership Competence 2: Trust As already mentioned, trust is a crucial aspect in

NWW (Baruch, 2001; Blok, Groenesteijn, Schelvis, & Vink, 2012; Van Breukelen
et al., 2014). This is also found in many leadership theories, since it is found as a
significant component of leader’s credibility in effective leadership (Kouzes &
Posner, 1993; Shaw, 1997). Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2000) made a review about
articles concerning trust and came to the conclusion that trust is multifaceted and
complex because of the various degrees and bases depending on the context of the
trust relationship. “Trust is one party’s willingness to be vulnerable to another party
based on the confidence that the latter party is (a) benevolent, (b) reliable, (c) com-
petent, (d) honest, and (e) open” (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2000, p. 556). Trust
can occur on different levels such as trust on the organizational level, trust in collea-
gues and trust in management (Cook & Wall, 1980; Hoy & Kupersmith, 1985).
Organizational trust and interpersonal trust are most common (Dirks & Ferrin,
2002). Interpersonal trust “is an expectancy held by an individual or group that the
word, promise, verbal or written statement of another individual or group can be
relied upon” (Rotter, 1967, p. 651).
In the context of NWW, interpersonal trust between colleagues and in manage-

ment are important since NWW consists of working anytime, anyplace and anyhow
which requires mutual trust among employees and in management. In NWW,
employees work time- and place-independent and leaders might experience a decline
in perceived control (Kurland & Cooper, 2002). Therefore, trust is of importance
since leaders have to trust their workers that they will perform and meet the agreed
schedules. However, trust among employees is also of importance since employees
must rely on their colleagues to perform (De Leede & Kraijenbrink, 2014). The lit-
erature shows empirical evidence for both the relationship between trust and orga-
nizational commitment (Büssing, 2002; Cho & Park, 2011) and the relationship
between supervisory trust and organizational commitment (Perry, 2004). So, the
presence of trust between colleagues and trust in management has a positive rela-
tionship with organizational commitment, the hypothesis for NWW as a whole is as

follows.
Hypothesis 2a. Trust between colleagues will moderate the relationship between
NWW and organizational commitment in such a way that the relationship
between NWW and organizational commitment will be more positive.
Hypothesis 2b. Trust in management will moderate the relationship between

Leadership Competence 3: Steering on Output In popular NWW publications, the

general observation is that steering on presence is no longer possible due to working
time- and place-independent; instead, steering on output is the new alternative
(Baane et al., 2010; Bernardino, Roglio, & Del Corso, 2012; Caillier, 2013). The
type of management control has changed from a control of staff presence to a form
of output-oriented control (Vos & van der Voordt, 2001). Caillier (2013) mentioned
two types of control: behavior-based controls and output-based controls. Behavior-
based controls are typically used on traditional employees and refer “to the strategy
of judging performance on the basis of workers’ observable activities, regardless of
results” (p. 640). Output-based controls refer to the evaluation of leaders of the per-
formance of employees which is based on output, products, or deliverables of work.
Offstein, Morwick, and Koskinen (2010) found that the key to successful telework-
ing in both public and private organizations “is more of a function of leadership
than technology” (p. 32). Steering on output appears to be essential in NWW
(Mahler, 2012) and leaders should change their focus from “work time” to “work
results” (Mayo, Pastor, Gomez-Mejia, & Cruz, 2009). However, also employees
should commit themselves toward quality, results, benchmarks and agreement on
deadlines (Bernardino et al., 2012).
Until now, little empirical evidence exists about how steering on output can lead
to more organizational commitment. Most studies provide evidence for a positive
relationship. For example, Agarwal (1999) found that output-based controls reduce
the negative effect of formalization on organizational commitment. Oliver and
Anderson (1995) found behavior-based controls leading to more organizational

commitment than output-based controls. Although these studies present evidence in
a traditional context, such as salespeople, the influence of output-based leadership
in NWW practices can only be expected to be similar. Therefore, the hypothesis for
NWW as a whole is as follows.
Hypothesis 3. Output-based controls will moderate the relationship between

Method
The data for this study is collected from a division of a Dutch organization in the
financial industry. The organization implemented in a certain degree NWW in their
organization. They moved into a new office that was fully reflecting the organiza-
tion’s view of NWW. It is possible to work in flexible spaces, on flexible hours and
to work at home, all supported by IT. This division consists of four departments
with around 2,500 employees. A survey was distributed among the four depart-
ments. The total sample size involved 296 employees. The overall response rate was
12%, with 258 usable surveys. Only the middle management, subordinates, and
office workers are taken into account.
As we may observe from Table 1, this division has an ageing workforce (with
one out of three older than 50 years) and quite a long organizational tenure (with
almost 50% working for longer than 16 years). They employ mostly men and
mostly working fulltime.
Measurements
Teleworking The variable is self-developed based on the checklist developed by

Van Breukelen et al. (2014). The scale consisted of two items: “How many hours (in
percentage) per week do you work from home?” and “How many hours (in
Table 1: Sample characteristics.
Gender 62% male, 38% female

Age 6% born < 1955; 27% between 1955 and 1964; 37% between
1965 and 1974, 25% between 1975 and 1984, and 5% after
1984
Contract hours 77% work > 35 hours per week
Tenure 28% > 25 years; 19% between 16 and 24 years; 17% between
9 and 16 years; 28% between 4 and 9 years; 8% < 4 years
percentage) per week do you work from another location (nor office or home)?” It
appeared to be possible to sum both questions up as one: “How many hours do you
not work at the office workplaces.” Therefore, the mean of both outcomes was
summed up and divided by two. It was divided by two since (1) the results are
shown in a relative sense and (2) because the four components are merged into one
10-point scale (NWW). It was tested if this method differed from only summing up
both outcomes which was not the case.
Flexible Workplaces at Work The three items of this variable are self-developed
based on the checklist developed by Van Breukelen et al. (2014). However, the relia-
bility of this scale is low (Cronbach’s Alpha 0.35). The first two questions indicated
if flexible (non-dedicated) workplaces at work were available for employees. The

only question used in our analysis, which indicated the usage of flexible workplaces
was as follows: “How many hours (in percentage) per week do you make use of flex-
ible workplaces at the office?” No Cronbach’s Alpha is needed, since this is a 1-item
variable.
Flexible Working Hours This variable is measured by two items (Kendall’s tau-b
0.657) which are self-developed based on the checklist developed by Van Breukelen
et al. (2014). The two stated questions were: “How many hours in percentage do you
have the freedom to spend your time in a week?” and “How much freedom do you get
to decide what days you work a week (in percentage)?” It can be concluded that
there is a relatively positive correlation (Kendall’s tau-b: 0.66; p < 0.001; n = 289)
between how much freedom in days and how many hours respondents feel empow-
ered to fill in at their own choice.
IT This variable is measured with seven items (Cronbach’s Alpha 0.68) which are
self-developed based on the checklist developed by Van Breukelen et al. (2014). The
items were: “Do you have the resources at home (computer, fast internet etc.) to
work for your job,” “How often do you use digital business systems at home?,” “How
often do you use digital business systems from another location (no office or home)?,”
“How often do you use cloud computing for your work?,” “How often do you use video
conferencing (with image)?,” “How often do you use video conferencing (without
image)?,” “How many hours per week (in percentage) are you busy with work related
tasks while on the road for your job (mails, calls, writing document)?”
NWW Given the configurational approach, it was decided to also measure NWW
as whole since a combined effect of the components appeared to be stronger. The
four components, teleworking, flexible workplaces at work, flexible working hours,
and IT together, constitute the construct NWW. To be able to merge the scales of
the components of NWW, the components of NWW were recoded into 10-point
scales. The data showed a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.73. When this component was
scaled into 10-point scales, the Cronbach’s Alpha changed to 0.77. The 10-point
scales were used to compare the various components of NWW and to be able to use
it as one variable.
Organizational Commitment The variable is operationalized based on Cook and

Wall (1980). Originally the scale consists of nine items. However, eight items
(Cronbach’s Alpha 0.80) are used for this research since the item “I’m not willing to
put myself out to help the organization” was omitted because it overlaps with the
item “In my work I like to feel I am making some effort, not just for myself but for
the organization as well.” Originally the answers of the items are based on a seven-
point Likert-scale. However, in this survey the items are based on a five-point
Likert-scale (1 = “strongly disagree,” 5 = “strongly agree”) to have a consistent
answering scale which facilitates filling in the survey. Two of eights items were
reversed stated questions (question 2 and 7). These questions were recoded.
Productivity The overall productivity of employees is measured with six items

from an existing questionnaire of Staples et al. (1999). Examples of items regarding
this component are: “I believe I am an effective employee,” “I work very efficiently,”
“My manager believes I am an efficient worker,” and “I am happy with the quality of
my work output.” The answers of the items are based on a five-point Likert-scale
(1 = “strongly disagree,” 5 = “strongly agree”). The Cronbach’s alpha of productivity
is 0.90.
Empowerment Four items (Cronbach’s Alpha 0.86) are used to measure empower-
ment based on the method of Spreitzer (1995). Only the dimensions “self-determination”
and “impact” were used since it entails job autonomy. The stated items were:
“I have significant autonomy in determining how I do my job,” “I can decide on my
own how to go about doing my work,” “I have considerable opportunity for indepen-
dence and freedom in how I do my job,” and “My impact on what happens in my
department is large.” Originally the answers of the items are based on a seven-point
Likert-scale. However, in this survey the items are based on a five-point Likert-
scale (1 = “strongly disagree,” 5 = “strongly agree”) to have a consistent answering
scale in the survey.
Trust The variable trust was divided in two ways: trust in management and trust
between colleagues. The items are based on an existing dataset of Cook and Wall
(1980). This dataset is still one of the most used datasets to measure interpersonal
trust (Matzler & Renzl, 2006).
Trust in Management Five items (Cronbach’s Alpha 0.85) are used to measure
trust in management: “Management at my firm is sincere in its attempts to meet the
worker’s point of view,” “Our firm has a poor future unless it can attract better man-
agers,” “Management can be trusted to make sensible decisions for the firm’s future,”
“Management at work seems to do an efficient job,” and “I feel quite confident that
the firm will always try to treat me fairly.”
Trust between Colleagues Originally the variable was measured by five items.
However, the reliability of the scale was not good enough. Therefore, the item
“I can trust the people I work with to lend me a hand if I needed it” was deleted. The
remaining items were: “If I got into difficulties at work I know my workmates would
try and help me out,” “Most of my workmates can be relied upon to do as they say
they will do,” “I have full confidence in the skills of my workmates,” and “I can rely
on other workers not making my job more difficult by careless work.” The
Cronbach’s Alpha after the item was deleted was 0.79.
Steering on Output The variable is operationalized with three items based on the
study of Ouchi (1978). However, because of the reliability of the scale, only ques-
tion 2 “When you are being evaluated for a raise or promotion, how much weight does
your supervisor give to the records of your output?” was included in the analysis. The
items “Does your immediate superior keep such records of your individual output?”
and “How often does your immediate supervisor check to see what you are doing on
the job?” were excluded.
Analysis
The quantitative analysis consists of three parts: (1) univariate analysis, (2) bivariate
analysis, and (3) multivariate analysis. Univariate analysis describes the descriptive
statistics of only one variable. All variables appeared to be normal distributed.
Bivariate analysis entails the relationship between two variables whereas multivari-
ate analysis is based on tests with more than two variables. A regression analysis
was performed to test the moderating role of the leadership competencies in the
relationship between NWW and organizational commitment. The data was analyzed
with SPSS version 21.
Results
Descriptives and Correlation Analysis
Table 2 presents the results of the descriptive and the bivariate correlation analysis.
A Pearson correlation analysis was used to determine the strength and direction of
the bivariate relationship. One-tailed significance was tested since only positive rela-
tionships were expected. The table shows almost only positive and significant values
with the exception of the control variables and the relationship between teleworking
and organizational commitment. The statistical significant correlation between
NWW and organizational commitment was 0.146 (Pearson).
Table 3 presents the means and standard deviations of (the components of)
NWW and the leadership competencies for each of the four departments. For most
of the respondents, it is not quite normal to work at home (between 0% and 10%).
However, it is normal to make use of the flexible workplaces at work (31 50%),
62
Jan de Leede and Paddy Heuver
Table 2: Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations.a
Mean SD Gender Age Teleworking Flexible Flexible IT NWW

Workplaces Working
at Work Hours
Gender 1.38b 0.49
Age 2.96c 0.99 .135*
Teleworking 1.58 1.47 −.098* −.123*
Flexible workplaces at work 5.77 2.16 −.043 .099* .303**
Flexible working hours 4.66 2.35 −.219** −.097 .529** .401**
IT 2.16 0.70 −.111* .047 .517** .412** .591**
NWW 5.23 2.49 −.158** −.040 .778** .700** .837** .747**
Organizational commitment 3.87 0.65 −.041 −.238** .053 .127* .156** .107* .146**
a
Correlations based on Pearson correlation analysis.
b
Scores can be 1 (male) and 2 (female).
c
1 = born < 1955; 2 = born between 1955 and 1964; 3 = born between 1965 and 1974, 4 = born between 1975 and 1984, and 5 = born after 1984.
*
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level.
**
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.
Table 3: Descriptives per department: Means (standard deviations).
Dept. A Dept. B Dept. C Dept. D

Teleworkinga 1.47 (1.44) 1.81 (1.60) 1.60 (1.62) 1.79 (1.43)
Flexible workplaces at worka 5.86 (2.08) 6.24 (1.34) 5.83 (2.12) 5.34 (2.48)
Flexible working hoursa 4.56 (2.34) 4.19 (2.24) 4.12 (2.47) 5.43 (2.18)
ITb 2.14 (0.69) 2.52 (0.50) 2.10 (0.87) 2.12 (0.63)
NWWc 5.15 (2.48) 5.60 (2.16) 5.00 (2.66) 5.47 (2.53)
Productivity 4.25 (0.51) 4.22 (0.33) 4.19 (0.47) 4.21 (0.71)
Organizational commitment 3,89 (0.63) 4.01 (0.53) 3.69 (0.53) 3.92 (0.80)
Empowermentb 3.83 (0.82) 4.20 (0.48) 3.71 (0.98) 4.12 (0.56)

b
Trust in management 3.49 (0.74) 3.58 (0.61) 3.59 (0.69) 3.55 (0.78)
Trust between colleaguesb 4.05 (0.59) 4.14 (0.57) 4.09 (0.49) 4.03 (0.76)
Steering on outputb 4.12 (1.30) 4.05 (1.13) 4.05 (1.45) 4.18 (1.23)
a
1 = 0 5%, 2 = 6 10%, 3 = 11 20%, 4 = 21 30%, 5 = 31 40%, 6 = 41 50%, and 7 = > 50%.
b
1 = never/totally disagree, 2 = sometimes/disagree, 3 = once a month/neutral, 4 = once a week/agree,
5 = daily/totally agree.
c
A 10-point scale.
especially for department B. The respondents of department B feel most empowered

in comparison to the other three departments. The other variables, such as trust in
management, trust between colleagues and steering on output only slightly differ
between the departments.
Regression Analysis
Figure 1 presents the results of the regression analysis for testing the moderating
role of the leadership competencies. The direct effects of the components of NWW
on organizational commitment are significant (p < 0.001) as well as the direct influ-
ences of the leadership competencies on organizational commitment. However, we
found no significant moderating effect of the leadership competencies on the rela-
tionship between (the components of) NWW and organizational commitment.
As an example we present the interaction effects of one of the leadership com-
petencies, namely empowerment. Figure 2 presents the interaction effects of
empowerment on the relationship NWW-organizational commitment. It shows a
typical curvilinear relation between NWW and commitment, which will be argued
further in the discussion section. The main effect of empowerment shows a signifi-
cant relation with organizational commitment (p = .03). If we look further,
low and medium scores on empowerment do not show an effect in high NWW
environments. Only high empowerment shows a positive effect. However, these
Empowerment 0.377
competencies
Leadership
Trust in Management 0.565
Trust between Colleagues 0.324
Steering on output 0.271
Commitment
Teleworking
0.127
Flexible workspaces
NWW
0.156
Flexible working hours
0.107
IT usage
0.146
Figure 1: Model of significant findings on outcome variable organizational

commitment. Note: Standardized coefficients (Beta) are used.
interaction effects are not significant. The hypothesis 1 must be rejected. The
same occurs with the other leadership competencies. Similarly, hypotheses 2a, 2b
and 3 are rejected.
Discussion
This study is contributing to the literature on New Ways of Working and its
work-related outcomes such as productivity and organizational commitment,
and especially on the role of leadership. We view three findings as particularly
valuable.
The first finding of this study is the positive relationships between NWW and
productivity and NWW and organizational commitment. We found significant
correlations, however, the results of the regression indicated on a weak one: only
little variance in productivity or organizational commitment could be explained
by NWW. So, although there is some positive relationship, it is not simply the
more, the better. Our understanding of this finding is twofold. In the first place,
our interpretation is that we no longer can view NWW as a linear construct. We
must assume curvilinear relationships. This is especially the case with teleworking,
as already indicated by other studies, like Golden and Veiga (2005) and Virick,
DaSilva, and Arrington (2010). They both observed an inverted U-shape relation-
ship between the amount of telecommuting and job and life satisfaction. We
may assume the same for productivity and organizational commitment. So, it is
the amount of telework that matters. The longer you work “out of sight” the
Figure 2: Interaction effect of trust in management on the relationship NWW and

organizational commitment.
more you might suffer from professional isolation (e.g., Golden, Veiga, & Dino,
2008), which is decreasing productivity and organizational commitment. In prac-
tice, 1 2 days working at home seems to be optimal, longer is not productive. In
the second place, NWW is a multifaceted construct that consists of several NWW
practices. These practices all are contingent to contextual factors on organiza-
tional, team and individual level. For instance, if teleworking is not supported
by high connectivity through IT, then it will be counter-productive. This contin-
gent character of NWW might explain the relatively low R squares. In short,
NWW might be viewed as curvilinear construct, contingent on several contextual
factors.
The second finding of this study is the absence of a moderating effect of leader-
ship competencies on the relationship between NWW and organizational commit-
ment. Our hypotheses were all pointing in the direction of moderating, in the sense
that more empowerment, trust and steering on output will strengthen the relation-
ship between NWW and outcomes. However, this is not supported by our data. It
seems to be that the degree of NWW does not matter. Employees in all working
environments, from low NWW to high NWW, report the same outcomes given
a particular leadership style. In other words, the NWW practices do not save
“bad leaders.” It is not so much a matter of NWW, but it is the leadership style
itself that matters. They have a direct influence on outcomes and not a moderating
effect.
A few explanations of our results can be mentioned. Our study included some
control variables, such as age and gender, but no other individual characteristics.
It might be the case that our results can be explained by taking into account the
influence of individual preferences, such as need for structure (Slijkhuis, 2012)
and need for leadership (Breevaart et al., 2015). The preference for working at
home is lower for people with a higher need for structure, as Slijkhuis (2012)
showed. Those with a higher need for structure in general like the routines in
going to the office have contact with colleagues and supervisors, having working
plans that are provided by others and so on. They prefer the initiating structure
leadership style (see e.g., Fleishman, 1995) in which managers employ a task-
oriented style and provide structure, direction, and clarity in group and member
roles. Even more convincing might be the argument of the need for leadership
that vary over time. This dynamic part of leadership is demonstrated by Breevaart
et al. (2015) who showed that employees vary per week in the need for leadership.
In some weeks they need more guidance toward goal achievement and inspiration
from their leaders compared to other weeks when they can lead themselves. In other
words, the need for leadership may vary across time, and so does the appropriate
leadership style: sometimes employees need transformational leadership styles, some-
times they need self-leadership. If we apply these observations on our study, the rea-
son that leadership does not relate to NWW practices might be that people themselves
choose the appropriate working environment. Employees with a high need for struc-
ture can choose to work at “normal” office hours at the office. Then they work more
productive and show higher commitment. Apparently, that is a stronger effect than
the supposed moderating effect of leadership: leaders cannot compensate in their lea-
dership styles for the possible mismatch in person-NWW-practice. Instead, leaders
should adapt their leadership styles to the individual employees and their personal
characteristics.
The third finding is that leadership matters: all our four competencies empow-
erment, trust in management, trust between colleagues, and steering on output
have a positive impact on organizational commitment. In addition, empowerment
and trust do have a positive impact on productivity. These are not moderating
effects, rather direct effects. Given the above discussion, we may propose for
future researchers on leadership and NWW to take into consideration these direct
effects. Maybe, it is a mediating role, like other studies also suggest. Dahlstrom
(2013) suggest that leadership can mediate the negative aspects of telework
on organizational commitment. De Leede and Kraijenbrink (2014) also provide
evidence for the trusting leadership style to be mediating the relationship between
NWW and performance.
Limitations
This study has some limitations because of the used methods and the limitations in
time and resources. The first limitation is the generalizability of this study. This
study only based on the data of one organization in the Netherlands. Therefore, it
is not possible to generalize the conclusion of this study for other organizations
and/or countries. In addition, since the case study was done in the financial industry
it is difficult to generalize the results to other sectors. Nevertheless, we think that
these results do provide insights into the role of leadership in NWW. Further
research should test the outcomes in other sectors. Another limitation is the cross-
sectional nature of this research. Despite the fact that efforts have been made to
reduce the limitations to the minimum by “testing” if respondents would have diffi-
culties with answering some of the questions, it is still impossible to say that every-
thing is filled out truthfully. The survey is measured at only one moment in time.
The perceptions of concepts like flexibility and trust are dynamic phenomena.
Further research should make use of a longitudinal research design. The last limita-
tion is the difficulty of measuring various effects. For example, organizational com-
mitment is not always the direct result of flexibility, but also may be a result of the
IT resources which enables flexibility. Also, further research should include if
employees have a facilitated home workstation or not.
Conclusion
This study reveals some new empirical evidence for the concept NWW. Based on
the case study (N = 296), we were able to assess the positive impact of NWW on
organizational commitment. The study is among the first to prove the relationship
between NWW and organizational commitment and more importantly, it is one of
the first providing empirical evidence on different leadership behaviors in explaining
the organizational outcome of NWW. Our study contributes to the existing theory
on NWW by focusing on the influence of empowerment, trust and steering on
output as leadership competencies in the relationship between NWW and organiza-
tional commitment. The leadership competencies appeared to not have a moderat-
ing role on the relationship between NWW and organizational commitment.
However, a direct and stronger influence of the leadership competencies on organi-
zational commitment was found. If employees feel more empowered, trusted and
are evaluated on output, their organizational commitment will increase “even” if
the employees work at home or in flexible offices. The theory and empirical findings
of this study calls for further elaboration in research. More contextualization of
these data is needed with the use of more comprehensive theoretical models.
References
Adair, J. (1973). Action-centered leadership. NHRD network journal. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Adams, J. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,
2, 267 299.
Agarwal, S. (1999). Impact of job formalization and administrative controls on attitudes of
industrial salespersons. Industrial Marketing Management, 28(4), 359 368.
Allen, T. J. (1977). Managing the flow of technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories,
research, and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421 449.
Avolio, B. J., Zhu, W., & Koh, W. (2004). Transformational leadership and organizational
commitment: Mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of struc-
tural distance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 951 968.

Baane, R., Houtkamp, P., & Knotter, M. (2010). Het nieuwe werken ontrafeld: Over bricks,
bytes & behavior. Assen: Koninklijke Van Gorcum.
Baruch, Y. (2001). The status of research on teleworking and an agenda for future.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(2), 113 129.
Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: Free Press.
Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. (2002). A typology of virtual teams: Implications for effective
leadership. Group & Organization Management, 27(1), 14 49.
Bernardino, A. F., Roglio, K. D. D., & Del Corso, J. M. (2012). Telecommuting and HRM:
A case study of an information technology service provider. Journal of Information
Systems and Technology Management, 9(2), 285 306.
Blok, M., Groenesteijn, L., Schelvis, R., & Vink, P. (2012). New ways of working: Does flex-
ibility in time and location of work change work behavior and affect business outcomes?
Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation, 41, 5075 5080.
Bogler, R., & Somech, A. (2004). Influence of teacher empowerment on teachers’ organiza-
tional commitment, professional commitment and organizational citizenship behavior in
schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(3), 277 289.
Bryman, A., Stephens, M., & Campo, C. (1996). The importance of context: Qualitative
research and the study of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 353 370.
Caillier, J. (2013). Does teleworking affect managing for results and constructive feedback? A
research note. Canadian Public Administration, 56(4), 638 654.
Cho, Y. J., & Park, H. (2011). Exploring the relationships among trust, employee satisfac-
tion, and organizational commitment. Public Management Review, 13(4), 37 41.
Ciulla, J. B. (1995). Leadership ethics: Mapping the territory. Business Ethics Quarterly,
5(1), 5.
Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commit-
ment and personal need non-fulfilment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53(1), 39 52.
Dahlstrom, T. R. (2013). Telecommuting and leadership style. Public Personnel Management,
42, 438 451.
Dalton, D., & Mesch, D. (1990). The impact of flexible scheduling on employee attendance
and turnover. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 370 387.
De Leede, J., & Kraijenbrink, J. (2014). The mediating role of trust and social cohesion in
the effects of new ways of working: A Dutch case study. In Human resource management,
social innovation and technology (Vol. 14). Advanced Series in Management. Bingley, UK:
Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implica-
tions for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611 628.
Dorfman, P., Howell, J., Hibino, S., Lee, J., Tate, U., & Bautista, A. (1997). Leadership in
Western and Asian countries: Commonalities and differences in effective leadership pro-
cesses across cultures. The Leadership Quarterly, 8(3), 233 274.
Eaton, S. C. (2003). If you can use them: Flexibility policies, organizational commitment,
and perceived performance. Industrial Relations, 42(2), 145 167.
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (EFILWC).
(2010). Telework in the European Union. Retrieved from http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/
eiro/studies/tn0910050s/tn0910050s.htm. Accessed on January 20, 2015.
Fiedler, F. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Fleishman, E. A. (1995). Consideration and structure: Another look at their role in leader-
ship research. In F. Dansereau & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Leadership: The multiple-level
approaches (pp. 51 60). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

Friedman, S., & Greenhaus, J. (2000). Work and family: Allies or enemies? New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Gajendran, R. S., & Harrison, D. (2007). The good, the bad, and the unknown about tele-
commuting: Meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences. The
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1524 1541.
Golden, T. D. (2006). Avoiding depletion in virtual work: Telework and the intervening
impact of work exhaustion on commitment and turnover intentions. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 69(1), 176 187.
Golden, T. D., & Veiga, J. F. (2005). The impact of extent of telecommuting on job satisfac-
tion: Resolving inconsistent findings. Journal of Management, 31(2), 301 318.
Golden, T. D., & Veiga, J. F. (2008). The impact of superior Subordinate relationships on
the commitment, job satisfaction, and performance of virtual workers. The Leadership
Quarterly, 19(1), 77 88.
Golden, T. D., Veiga, J. F., & Dino, R. N. (2008). The impact of professional isolation on
teleworker job performance and turnover intentions: Does time spent teleworking, inter-
acting face-to-face, or having access to communication-enhancing technology matter?
Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1412 1421.
Grover, S., & Crooker, K. (1995). Who appreciates family-responsive human resource poli-
cies: The impact of family-friendly policies on the organizational attachment of parents
and non-parents. Personnel Psychology, 48(2), 271 288.
Harpaz, I. (2002). Advantages and disadvantages of telecommuting for the individual, orga-
nization and society. Work Study, 51(2), 74 80.
Hayes, J. (2014). The theory and practice of change management (4th ed.). Hampshire:
Palgrave Macmillian.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. (1977). Management of organizational behavior. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Howell, J., & Avolio, B. (1992). The ethics of charismatic leadership: Submission or libera-
tion? The Executive, 6(2), 43 52.
Hoy, W., & Kupersmith, W. (1985). The meaning and measure of faulty trust. Educational
and Psychological Research, 5, 1 10.
Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (1993). Credibility. The healthcare forum journal. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kurland, N., & Cooper, C. (2002). Manager control and employee isolation in telecommut-
ing environments. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 13(1), 107 126.
Lee, S. Y., & Brand, J. L. (2005). Effects of control over office workspace on perceptions of the
work environment and work outcomes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 323 333.
Lyness, K. S., Gornick, J. C., Stone, P., & Grotto, A. R. (2012). It’s all about control:
Worker control over schedule and hours in cross-national context. American Sociological
Review, 77(6), 1023 1049.
Mahler, J. (2012). The telework divide: Managerial and personnel challenges of telework.
Review of Public Personnel Administration, 32(4), 407 418.
Matzler, K., & Renzl, B. (2006). The relationship between interpersonal trust, employee satis-
faction, and employee loyalty. Total Quality Management, 17(10), 1261 1271.
Mayo, M., Pastor, J., Gomez-Mejia, L., & Cruz, C. (2009). Why some firms adopt telecom-
muting while other do not: A contingency perspective. Human Resource Management,
48(6), 917 939.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, J. A. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and appli-
cation. London: Sage.

Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational
commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14(2), 224 247.
Ng, T. W. H., Butts, M. M., Vandenberg, R. J., Dejoy, D. M., & Wilson, M. G. (2006).
Effects of management communication, opportunity for learning, and work schedule
flexibility on organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(3),
474 489.
Nijp, H. H., Beckers, D. G. J., Geurts, S. A. E., Tucker, P., & Kompier, M. A. J. (2012).
Systematic review on the association between employee worktime control and work non-
work balance, health and well-being, and job-related outcomes. Scandinavian Journal of
Work, Environment & Health, 38(4), 299 313.
Offstein, E., Morwick, J., & Koskinen, L. (2010). Making telework work: Leading people
and leveraging technology for competitive advantage. Strategic HR Review, 9(2), 32 37.
Oliver, R. L., & Anderson, E. (1995). Behavior- and outcome-based sales control systems:
Evidence and consequences of pure-form and hybrid governance. Journal of Personal
Selling & Sales Management, 15(4), 1 15.
Ouchi, W. (1978). The transmission of control through organizational. The Academy of
Management Journal, 21(2), 173 192.
Paré, G., & Tremblay, M. (2007). The influence of high involvement human resources prac-
tices, procedural justices, organizational commitment, and citizen behaviors on informa-
tion technology professionals’ turnover intentions. Group & Organization Management,
32(3), 326 357.
Perry, R. W. (2004). The relationship of affective organizational commitment with super-
visory trust. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 24, 133 149.
Pitt-Catsouphes, M., & Matz-Costa, C. (2008). The multi-generational workforce:
Workplace flexibility and engagement. Community, Work & Family, 11(2), 215 229.
Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the
literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 698.
Rodgers, C. (1992). The flexible workplace: What have we learned? Human Resource
Management, 31(3), 183 199.
Rodwell, J., Kienzle, R., & Shadur, M. A. (1998). The relationship among work-related
perceptions, employee attitudes, and employee performance: The integral role of communi-
cations. Human Resource Management, 37(3 4), 277 293.
Rotter, J. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of
Personality, 35(4), 651 665.
Scandura, T. A., & Lankau, M. J. (1997). Relationships of gender, family responsibility and
flexible work hours to organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 18(4), 377 391.
Shaw, R. (1997). Trust in the balance. San Francisco, CA: Fossey-Bass Publishers.
Slijkhuis, M. (2012). A structured approach to need for structure at work. PhD thesis.
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measure-
ment, and validation. The Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442 1465.
Thompson, J. (2011). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory.
New Brunswick NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Thompson, C., Beauvais, L., & Lyness, K. (1999). When work family benefits are not
enough: The influence of work family culture on benefit utilization, organizational attach-
ment, and work family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54(3), 392 415.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. K. (2000). A multidisciplinary analysis of the nature,

meaning, and measurement of trust. Review of Educational Research, 70(4), 547 593.
Van Breukelen, W. V., Makkenze, S., & Waterreus, R. (2014). Kernaspecten van Het Nieuwe
Werken en een checklist om deze in kaart te brengen. Gedrag & Organisatie, 27(2),
157 187.
Virick, M., DaSilva, N., & Arrington, K. (2010). Moderators of the curvilinear relation
between extent of telecommuting and job and life satisfaction: The role of performance
outcome orientation and worker type. Human Relations, 63(1), 137 154.
Vos, P., & van der Voordt, T. (2001). Tomorrow’s offices through today’s eyes: Effects of
innovation in the working environment. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 4(1), 48 65.
Wiesenfeld, B. M., Raghuram, S., & Garud, R. (1999). Communication patterns as determi-
nants of organizational identification in a virtual organization. Organization Science, 10(6),
777 790.
Winston, B. E., & Patterson, K. (2006). An integrative definition of leadership. International
Journal of Leadership Studies, 1(2), 6–66.
Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

2016.deleede - New Ways of Working and Leadership - An Empirical Study in The Service Industry

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2016.deleede - New Ways of Working and Leadership - An Empirical Study in The Service Industry

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

New Ways of Working Practices

Downloaded on: 18 December 2016, At: 03:26 (PT)

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

New Ways of Working and Leadership: An

Keywords: New ways of working; organizational commitment; leadership;

New Ways of Working Practices: Antecedents and Outcomes

The Influence of Leadership Behaviors on NWW Practices

To develop a theoretical framework on leadership and NWW practices, it is neces-

Outcomes: Organizational Commitment

Teleworking and Organizational Commitment

Flexible Workplaces at Work and Organizational Commitment

Matz-Costa, 2008, p. 225).

Flexible Working Hours and Organizational Commitment

IT and Organizational Commitment

The development and implementation of NWW practices can be described as an

Leadership is extensively discussed in the literature and has various definitions.

Leadership Competence 1: Empowerment Empowerment “is a leadership strategy

relationship between transformational leadership and organizational commitment

Hypothesis 1. Empowerment will moderate the relationship between NWW and

Leadership Competence 2: Trust As already mentioned, trust is a crucial aspect in

In the context of NWW, interpersonal trust between colleagues and in manage-

tionship with organizational commitment, the hypothesis for NWW as a whole is as

Hypothesis 2b. Trust in management will moderate the relationship between

Leadership Competence 3: Steering on Output In popular NWW publications, the

Anderson (1995) found behavior-based controls leading to more organizational

Hypothesis 3. Output-based controls will moderate the relationship between

Teleworking The variable is self-developed based on the checklist developed by

Table 1: Sample characteristics.

Gender 62% male, 38% female

if flexible (non-dedicated) workplaces at work were available for employees. The

Organizational Commitment The variable is operationalized based on Cook and

Productivity The overall productivity of employees is measured with six items

Descriptives and Correlation Analysis

Mean SD Gender Age Teleworking Flexible Flexible IT NWW

Table 3: Descriptives per department: Means (standard deviations).

Dept. A Dept. B Dept. C Dept. D

Empowermentb 3.83 (0.82) 4.20 (0.48) 3.71 (0.98) 4.12 (0.56)

especially for department B. The respondents of department B feel most empowered

Trust in Management 0.565

Trust between Colleagues 0.324

Steering on output 0.271

Figure 1: Model of significant findings on outcome variable organizational

Figure 2: Interaction effect of trust in management on the relationship NWW and

tural distance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 951 968.

approaches (pp. 51 60). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

cation. London: Sage.

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. K. (2000). A multidisciplinary analysis of the nature,

You might also like