Data-Based Remodeling of the Electronic Cottage
Wayne F. Cascio
University of Colorado
In the last issue of TIP, Holland and Hogan (1998) decried the
complete lack of published empirical research on telecommuting from home (which they
termed an "electronic cottage"), and advised I-O psychologists to examine the
data regarding costs and psychological consequences of telecommuting, prior to rendering a
judgment about its impact on organizational effectiveness and employee satisfaction. I
agree that rigorous research should guide decisions about the overall impact of
telecommuting, and I agree that I omitted mention of such research from my previous TIP
article on the virtual workplace (Cascio, 1998). However, it is simply wrong to claim that
there are no empirical studies in the "mainstream literature" that evaluate the
impact of telecommuting. It is true that such studies have not appeared in the I-O
psychology literature, but the sweeping statement that that there are no empirical studies
in the "mainstream literature" is simply false. In fact, most existing studies
of the effects of telecommuting are not methodologically rigorous, but they have appeared,
primarily in the literature on information systems. Here is a very brief sample of their
findings.
Research on Telecommuting
A critical analysis of 32 published empirical research studies on
telecommuting found them to be plagued with methodological problems, such as small sample
sizes, lack of control groups, heavy reliance on self-reports, and failure to control
extraneous factors, such as employment status, job type, and the level of participation
(McCloskey & Igbaria, 1998). There is a strong tendency in the published research to
treat both full-time and part-time employees who telecommute as a homogeneous group. This
unwise decision makes it difficult to interpret study results. Moreover, gender and
employment status are often related, as many studies have found that part-time workers are
predominantly women, while full-time workers are predominantly men.
Telecommuting lends itself to both professional work (low division of
labor with internal control) and clerical work (high division of labor with external
control; Ford & Butts, 1995; Olson, 1987). It is likely that the experiences and
outcomes of telecommuting will differ for these jobs. However, many researchers have
included both clerical and professional/managerial employees in their samples in examining
attitudes and outcomes associated with telecommuting.
Finally, it seems reasonable to expect differences in the attitudes and
experiences of telecommuters depending on the amount of time that they work at a remote
location (Kraut, 1989). Most of the literature suggests that there should be a balance
between telecommuting and working in the traditional office environment. Productivity
studies have shown that working at home three days per week is optimum, with working more
or less at home resulting in lower productivity (McCloskey & Igbaria, 1998). Studies
that do not consider the relative level of telecommuting participation may therefore miss
an important explanation for any subsequent differences in attitudes or outcomes.
Telecommuting and the Balance Between
Work and Family Demands
Very few scholarly articles have examined the effect of telecommuting
on the work-family relations of telecommuters. Those that do paint a mixed picture.
However, a recent study done in three Canadian organizations collected information from
four groups (telecommuters, managers, co-workers, and a control group) 2 weeks before and
6 months after the introduction of telecommuting (Duxbury, Higgins, & Neufeld, 1998).
The researchers collected data from questionnaires as well as telephone interviews.
Results indicated that there were no significant changes in work/family conflict, stress,
and the ability to manage personal or family time for respondents in the control,
co-worker, and manager groups over the course of the study. However, telecommuters had
significantly lower levels of interference from work to family, significantly lower levels
of interference from family to work, and significantly fewer problems managing their
family time than they did prior to telecommuting. These data support the
"positive" view of telecommuting. They suggest that working from home helps
employed parents balance work and family demands.
Implications for Decision Makers and for I-O Psychologists
I agree with Holland and Hogan (1998) that decision makers and I-O
psychologists should be skeptical of claims about the effects of telecommuting, especially
if the claims are not grounded in rigorous empirical research. For example, several
studies have suggested that the level of telecommuting participation will have a negative
impact on visibility, and, therefore, on career advancement (Austin, 1993; DuBrin &
Barnard, 1993; Dutton, 1994). From the perspective of office politics, this is the
"out-of-sight, out-of-mind" argument. However, empirical research has not
addressed this issue.
Before drawing conclusions about telecommuting and framing
organizational policy on this issue, decision makers should also consider the extent to
which research findings might apply to their own industries and organizational cultures,
and to employees at different stages of their careers. I-O psychologists should seize the
opportunity to apply their skills in conducting rigorous empirical research relevant to a
practice that is exploding in popularity. By disentangling the organizational and personal
effects of level of participation on telecommuters, by exploring potential differences in
outcomes by gender and level of job, and by identifying salient personal characteristics
of successful telecommuters, our research can help guide organizational policy decisions,
as well as important decisions that individuals make relative to their careers and
lifestyles.
Rigorous research on telecommuting, and on virtual work arrangements in
general, represents yet another opportunity for our field to become more visible. As I-O
psychologists, we have the expertise to develop theories to predict and explain the
effects of these new work arrangements, and to move beyond purely descriptive information.
This is a problem that is relevant and important to managers and employees alike. I-O
psychologists need to broaden their definition of "mainstream" if the field is
to progress beyond that of a cottage industry.
References
Austin, J. (1993). Telecommuting success depends on reengineering the work processes. Computing
Canada, 19, 37–38.
DuBrin, A. J., & Barnard, J. C. (1993). What telecommuters like and dislike about
their jobs. Business Forum, 18, 13–17.
Dutton, G. (1994). Can California change its corporate culture? Management Review,
83, 49–54.
Duxbury, L., Higgins, C., & Neufeld, D. (1998). Telework and the balance between
work and family: Is telework part of the problem or part of the solution? In M. Igbaria
& M. Tan (Eds.), The virtual workplace (pp. 218–255). Hershey, PA: Idea
Group Publishing.
Ford, R. C., & Butts, M. (1995). Questions and answers about telecommuting
programs. Business Horizons, 38, 66–72.
Kraut, R. E. (1989). Telecommuting: The trade-offs of home work. Journal of
Communication, 39, 19–47.
McCloskey, D. W., & Igbaria, M. (1998). A review of the empirical research on
telecommuting and directions for future research. In M. Igbaria & M. Tan (Eds.), The
virtual workplace (pp. 338–358). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
Olson, M. H. (1987). Telework: Practical experience and future
prospects. In R. E. Kraut (Ed.), Technology and the transformation of white collar work.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
TIP
Vol. 36/No. 3 January, 1999
Return to Table of Contents