Advertisement

Journal of Business and Psychology

, Volume 33, Issue 3, pp 365–382 | Cite as

Unpackaging Manager Mistrust in Allowing Telework: Comparing and Integrating Theoretical Perspectives

  • Seth Kaplan
  • Lia Engelsted
  • Xue Lei
  • Karla Lockwood
Original Paper

Abstract

Purpose

We developed and tested an integrative model centering on the significance of trust as a basis for managers’ decisions about allowing versus prohibiting their employees to telework. We examined the importance of trust in relation to several other factors managers may consider in making telework decisions including coordination and communication, equity, and a desire to accommodate employees.

Design/Methodology/Approach

Study 1 was a policy capturing investigation of 71 respondents intended to document the relative importance and interactions among trust and these other theoretically based factors. Study 2 was a test of the full theoretical model based on the responses of 85 managers who reported on these considerations for the 191 employees about whom they make telework decisions.

Findings

Results from the two studies were largely consistent. Managers’ assessments of employees’ conscientiousness and trustworthiness were paramount in predicting telework allowance, with the other theoretically based considerations generally failing to attenuate the importance of those personal assessments.

Implications

Organizations wishing to increase the use of telework (e.g., by implementing manager telework training) must directly address managers’ mistrust as a factor underlying this resistance. Job-related and technological changes may not dampen the effects of mistrust.

Originality

To our knowledge, this is the most comprehensive and theoretically grounded assessment of the various considerations factoring into managers’ telework decisions.

Keywords

Telework Telecommuting Trust Policy capturing Manager resistance Multilevel mediation 

References

  1. Aiman-Smith, L., Scullen, S. E., & Barr, S. H. (2002). Conducting studies of decision making in organizational contexts: A tutorial for policy-capturing and other regression-based techniques. Organizational Research Methods, 5, 388–414. doi: 10.1177/109442802237117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen, T. D. (2001). Family-supportive work environments: The role of organizational perceptions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 414–435. doi: 10.1006/jvbe.2000.1774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allen, T. D., Golden, T. D., & Shockley, K. M. (2015). How effective is telecommuting? Assessing the status of our scientific findings. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 16, 40–68. doi: 10.1177/1529100615593273.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Avery, D. R., & McKay, P. F. (2006). Target practice. An organizational impression management approach to attracting minority and family job applicants. Personnel Psychology, 59, 157–187. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00807.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bailey, D. E., & Kurland, N. B. (2002). A review of telework research: Findings, new directions, and lessons for the study of modern work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 383–400. doi: 10.1002/job.144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Ten Brummelhuis, L. L. (2012). Work engagement, performance, and active learning: The role of conscientiousness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 555–564. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2011.08.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1993). Autonomy as a moderator of the relationships between the Big Five personality dimensions and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 111–118. doi: 10.1037//0021-9010.78.1.111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beham, B., Baierl, A., & Poelmans, S. (2015). Managerial telework allowance decisions—a vignette study among German managers. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26, 1385–1406. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2014.934894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bretz Jr., R. D., & Judge, T. A. (1994). The role of human resource systems in job applicant decision processes. Journal of Management, 20, 531–551. doi: 10.1177/014920639402000301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carlson, J. R., & Zmud, R. W. (1999). Channel expansion theory and the experiential nature of media richness perceptions. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 153–170. doi: 10.2307/257090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cascio, W. F. (2000). Managing a virtual workplace. The Academy of Management Executive, 14, 81–90. doi: 10.5465/AME.2000.4468068.Google Scholar
  12. Costa Jr., P. T., McCrae, R. R., & Dye, D. A. (1991). Facet scales for agreeableness and conscientiousness: A revision of the NEO personality inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 887–898. doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(91)90177-D.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1984). Information richness: A new approach to managerial behavior and organizational design. Research in Organizational Behavior, 6, 191–233.Google Scholar
  14. Dean, J. Jr., & Snell, S.A. (1991). Integrated manufacturing and job design: Moderating effects of organizational inertia. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 776–804.Google Scholar
  15. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 319–338. doi: 10.1207/s15327965pli1104_01.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dikkers, J. S., Geurts, S. A., Dulk, L. D., Peper, B., Taris, T. W., & Kompier, M. A. (2007). Dimensions of work–home culture and their relations with the use of work–home arrangements and work–home interaction. Work & Stress, 21, 155–172. doi: 10.1080/02678370701442190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Evans, A. M., & Revelle, W. (2008). Survey and behavioral measurements of interpersonal trust. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 1585–1593. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2008.07.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  19. Gajendran, R. S., & 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, 92, 1524–1541. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1524.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Gajendran, R. S., Harrison, D. A., & Delaney-Klinger, K. (2015). Are telecommuters remotely good citizens? Unpacking telecommuting’s effects on performance via I-deals and job resources. Personnel Psychology, 68, 353–393. doi: 10.1111/peps.12082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gallup (2015). In U.S., telecommuting for work climbs to 37%. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/184649/telecommuting-work-climbs.aspx
  22. Global Workplace Analytics (2015). Telecommuting statistics, how many people could telework? / How many want to?, Retrieved March 20, 2015 from http://globalworkplaceanalytics.com/telecommuting-statistics
  23. Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. Personality Psychology in Europe, 7, 7–28 Retrieved from http://projects.ori.org/lrg/PDFs_papers/A%20broad-bandwidth%20inventory.pdf.Google Scholar
  24. Golden, T. (2007). Co-workers who telework and the impact on those in the office: Understanding the implications of virtual work for co-worker satisfaction and turnover intentions. Human Relations, 60, 1641–1667. doi: 10.1177/0018726707084303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Golden, T. D., & Veiga, J. F. (2005). The impact of extent of telecommuting on job satisfaction: Resolving inconsistent findings. Journal of Management, 31, 301–318. doi: 10.1177/0149206304271768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hammer, L. B., Kossek, E. E., Anger, W. K., Bodner, T., & Zimmerman, K. L. (2011). Clarifying work–family intervention processes: The roles of work–family conflict and family-supportive supervisor behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 134–150. doi: 10.1037/a0020927.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Heusinkveld, H. S., & Peters, P. (2010). Institutional explanations for managers’ attitudes towards telehomeworking. Human Relations, 63, 107–135. doi: 10.1177/0018726709336025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jones, E., & Nisbett, R. (1971). The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior. New York: General Learning PressGoogle Scholar
  29. Karnowski, S., & White, B. J. (2002). The role of facility managers in the diffusion of organizational telecommuting. Environment and Behavior, 34, 322–334. doi: 10.1177/0013916502034003003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Karren, R. J., & Barringer, M. W. (2002). A review and analysis of the policy-capturing methodology in organizational research: Guidelines for research and practice. Organizational Research Methods, 5, 337–361. doi: 10.1177/109442802237115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kirby, E. L., & Krone, K. (2002). “The policy exists but you can’t really use it”: Communication and the structuration of work-family policies. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 30, 50–77. doi: 10.1080/00909880216577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kossek, E. E. (2005). Workplace policies and practices to support work and families. In S. M. Bianchi, L. M. Casper, & R. B. King (Eds.), Work, family, health, and well-being . Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. pp. 97–115.Google Scholar
  33. Kramer, R.M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 569–98.Google Scholar
  34. Kurland, N. B., & Egan, T. D. (1999). Telecommuting: Justice and control in the virtual organization. Organization Science, 10, 500–513. doi: 10.1287/orsc.10.4.500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lautsch, B. A., & Kossek, E. E. (2011). Managing a blended workforce: Telecommuters and non-telecommuters. Organizational Dynamics, 40, 10–17. doi: 10.1016/j.orgdyn.2010.10.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lautsch, B. A., Kossek, E. E., & Eaton, S. C. (2009). Supervisory approaches and paradoxes in managing telecommuting implementation. Human Relations, 62, 795–827. doi: 10.1177/0018726709104543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lengel, R. H., & Daft, R. L. (1988). The selection of communication media as an executive skill. Academy of Management Executive, 2, 225–232. doi: 10.5465/ame.1988.4277259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationship. In K. Gergen, M. Greenberg, & R. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27–55). New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social Forces, 63, 967–985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Liu, D., Zhang, Z. & Wang, M. (2012). Mono-level and multilevel mediated moderation and moderated mediation: Theorizing and test. In Chen, X., Tsui, A., and Farh, L. (Eds., 2nd Edition). Empirical methods in organization and management research Beijing, China: Peking University Press pp. 545–579).Google Scholar
  41. Mahler, J. (2012). The telework divide managerial and personnel challenges of telework. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 32, 407–418. doi: 10.1177/0734371X12458127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (1999). The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 123–136. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.84.1.123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect-and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 24–59. doi: 10.2307/256727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mokhtarian, P. L., Bagley, M. N., & Salomon, I. (1998). The impact of gender, occupation, and presence of children on telecommuting motivations and constraints. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49, 1115–1134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nieminen, L. R. G., Nicklin, J. M., McClure, T. K., & Chakrabarti, M. (2011). Meta-analytic decisions and reliability: A serendipitous case of three independent telecommuting meta-analyses. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26, 105–121. doi: 10.1007/s10869-010-9185-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nilles, J. M. (1994). Making telecommuting happen: A guide for telemanagers and telecommuters. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
  47. O’Neill, T. A., Hambley, L. A., & Bercovich, A. (2014). Prediction of cyberslacking when employees are working away from the office. Computers in Human Behavior, 34, 291–298. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Park, W.-W., & Kim, S. (2012). The need of leader–subordinate reciprocal dyadic trust to build the subordinate’s trust in the organization: The case of Korean air pilots. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 22, 97–119. doi: 10.1080/10508414.2012.663234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pate, J., Martin, G., & McGoldrick, J. (2003). The impact of psychological contract violation on employee attitudes and behavior. Employee Relations, 25, 557–573. doi: 10.1108/01425450310501306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pearce, J. L., & Gregersen, H. B. (1991). Task interdependence and extrarole behavior: A test of the mediating effects of felt responsibility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 838–844. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.76.6.838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Peters, P., & den Dulk, L. (2003). Cross cultural differences in managers’ support for home-based telework: A theoretical elaboration. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 3, 329–346. doi: 10.1177/1470595803003003005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Peters, P., den Dulk, L., & De Ruijter, J. (2010). May I work from home? Views of the employment relationship reflected in line managers’ telework attitudes in six financial-sector organizations. Equality, Diversity & Inclusion, 29, 517–531. doi: 10.1108/02610151011052799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Peters, P., Poutsma, F., Van der Heijden, B. I. J. M., Bakker, A., & de Bruin, T. (2014). Enjoying new ways to work: An HRM process approach to study flow. Human Resource Management, 53, 271–290. doi: 10.1002/hrm.21588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15, 209–233.Google Scholar
  55. Putnam, L. L., Myers, K. K., & Gailliard, B. M. (2014). Examining the tensions in workplace flexibility and exploring options for new directions. Human Relations, 67, 413–440. doi: 10.1177/0018726713495704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rousseau, D. M. (2001). Idiosyncratic deals: Fairness versus flexibility. Organizational Dynamics, 29, 260–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ryan, A., & Kossek, E. (2008). Work-life policy implementation: Breaking down or creating barriers to inclusiveness. Human Resource Management, 47, 295–310. doi: 10.1002/hrm.20213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2d Ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Society for Human Resource Management (2014a). 2014 employee benefits: An overview of employee benefits offerings in the U.S. Google Scholar
  59. Society for Human Resource Management (2014a). Flexible work arrangements. Retrieved from SHRM website: https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/trends-and-forecasting/special-reports-and-expert-views/Documents/Flexible%20Work%20Arrangements.pdf
  60. Society for Human Resource Management (2014b). 10% would take less pay to telecommute, study says. Retrieved from SHRM website: http://www.shrm.org/hrdisciplines/technology/articles/pages/less-pay-to-telework.aspx
  61. Thompson, C. (2008). Barriers to the implementation and usage of work-life policies. In Harmonizing work, family, and personal life in organizations: From policy to practice, Eds.Google Scholar
  62. Tomassetti, A. J., Dalal, R. S., & Kaplan, S. (2016). Is policy capturing really more resistant than traditional self-report techniques to socially desirable responding? Organizational Research Methods, 19, 255–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Turetken, O., Jain, A., Quesenberry, B., & Ngwenyama, O. (2011). An empirical investigation of the impact of individual and work characteristics on telecommuting success. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 54, 56–67. doi: 10.1109/TPC.2010.2041387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (2012). Status of telework in the federal government: Report to Congress. U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Retrieved from http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCgQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.telework.gov%2FReports_and_Studies%2FAnnual_Reports%2F2012teleworkreport.pdf&ei=c0Z1ULpDjrDQAZ28gPAM&usg=AFQjCNFi1qmT1YERGFwGUcjZjGdZPBGXMw
  65. Vega, R., Anderson, A., & Kaplan, S. A. (2015). A within-person examination of the effects of telework. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30, 313–323. doi: 10.1007/s10869-014-9359-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Vega, R., Lei, X., & Kaplan, S. (2016). The impact of participant experience on policy- capturing results. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Anaheim, CA.Google Scholar
  67. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS quarterly, 425–478. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/30036540.pdf
  68. WorldatWork. (2015). Survey on workplace flexibility. Retrieved from WorldatWork website.Google Scholar
  69. Wrightsman, L. S., (1991). Interpersonal trust and attitudes toward human nature. In J. P. Robinson (Ed); P. R. Shaver (Ed); L. S. Wrightsman (Ed). Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes. San Diego, CA, US: Academic Press. pp. 373–412.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyGeorge Mason UniversityFairfaxUSA

Personalised recommendations