J Bus Psychol
DOI 10.1007/s10869-014-9359-4
A Within-Person Examination of the Effects of Telework
Ronald P. Vega • Amanda J. Anderson •
Seth A. Kaplan
 Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study was to examine tele-
work using a within-person research methodology and to
broaden the typical outcomes investigated in regards to
telework.
Design/Methodology/Approach Data were obtained from
a large U.S. government organization from both supervi-
sors and non-supervisors. Surveys were completed on five
consecutive workdays when employees were either tele-
working or not (n = 180). On average, employees tele-
worked 2.13 days during data collection.
Findings Employees generally have a more positive work
experience while teleworking. They report higher levels of
job performance and job satisfaction, and did better on an
objective creative task when teleworking.
Implications Research findings can vary in magnitude and
even direction when considered at different levels of ana-
lysis. The results of this study support the generally positive
findings about telework from between-person research at the
within-person level. Managers can utilize this information to
appropriately consider when employees need to be in the
office and when teleworking is a viable alternative.
Originality/Value This is the first study to examine
telework from a within-person perspective using
modern teleworking employees. In addition, the outcomes
R. P. Vega (&)
A. J. Anderson
S. A. Kaplan
Department of Psychology, George Mason University, 4400
University Drive, 3F5, Fairfax, VA 22030-4444, USA
e-mail: rvega@gmu.edu
A. J. Anderson
e-mail: aander10@gmu.edu
S. A. Kaplan
e-mail: skaplan1@gmu.edu
associated with telework were expanded to include a
broader conception of performance (i.e., creative perfor-
mance). By using a within-person methodology, we can
more comprehensively understand the phenomenological
experience of telework.
Keywords Telework
Within-person
Performance

Satisfaction
Creativity
Introduction
Technological advances have resulted in increasing the
numbers of job tasks being completed outside the tradi-
tional office place. In 2011, twenty-six million employees
in the U.S. reported engaging in telework (World at work
2011). Furthermore, by 2016, the number of teleworkers in
America is expected to increase by 69 % (Lister and
Harnish 2011). Many government agencies and companies
have implemented policies to encourage telework with the
hopes that working away from the office will boost pro-
ductivity and save money (e.g., Telework Enhancement
Act of 2010, Public Law 111-292).
The academic literature reflects this increase in tele-
work, with several investigations of the effects of remote
work arrangements and telework specifically (e.g., Bailey
and Kurland 2002; Gajendran and Harrision 2007).
Results of primary studies on the effect of teleworking
have been somewhat mixed. On one hand, several primary
studies suggest telecommuting results in positive out-
comes. Telework has been shown to have beneficial
relationships with job satisfaction, supervisor-rated per-
formance, work–family balance, and reduced stress and
turnover intentions (Fonner and Roloff 2010; Gajendran
and Harrision 2007; Golden and Veiga 2005; Golden et al.
123

2006; Hill et al. 2003). On the other hand, telework also
has been associated with some negative outcomes, espe-
cially when employees telework a majority of the time.
For example, Golden et al (2008) show that the adverse
effects of professional isolation on performance and
turnover intentions that teleworkers may experience are
stronger when employees telework for an extensive
amount of time. Other studies have found that employees
who telework frequently feel more excluded from the
workplace and report higher levels of family-to-work
conflict (Golden et al. 2006; Morganson et al. 2010). In
addition, higher telecommuter prevalence within an
organization is related to lower levels of coworker satis-
faction (Golden 2007). These mixed results show that the
study of telecommuting requires more attention and that
its effects are not fully known.
In attempting to clarify these discrepant results, we
hope to contribute to the literature in two ways. First, we
utilize a within-person methodology that will shed light on
the effects of telework at the within-person level, as
opposed to the cross-sectional or between-person approach
that has characterized the majority of telework literature
(Gajendran and Harrision 2007). This knowledge is
important because relationships at the within-person level
may be different in magnitude or even direction than
findings at the between-person level—a point upon which
we elaborate below (Chen et al. 2005). As a second
intended contribution, we expand the criteria space of the
telework literature by examining creative performance,
and we do so using both a creative task and a self-report
measure of creative performance. With these intended
contributions as a backdrop, the remainder of the intro-
duction section unfolds as follows. First, we elaborate on
the importance of examining telework from a within-
individual perspective. Then, we present theoretical
rationales linking telework to each of the study outcomes
and offer corresponding hypotheses. Following this, we
present a study examining these ideas among a sample of
180 employees who engage in telework.
Before delving into that material, we first clarify our use
of the term ‘‘telework.’’ We follow the U.S. Office of
Personnel Management (OPM) in defining telework as
‘‘work arrangements in which an employee regularly per-
forms officially assigned duties at home or other sites
geographically convenient to the residence of the
employee’’ (U.S. Office of Personnel Management 2010).
We chose this definition for two reasons. First, it is general
enough to capture many of the related (but narrower) terms
used in the relevant academic literature such as telecom-
muting, flexible workplace, virtual work, or remote work.
Second, this definition is the standard for telework as
defined by the U.S. the federal government, which is the
standard followed in our sample.
123
J Bus Psychol
Studying Telework Using a Within-Person Design
The great majority of previous studies investigating telework
have been conducted at the between-person level of analysis
using a cross-sectional design (Gajendran and Harrision
2007). For example, a series of studies (Golden et al. 2006,
2008; Golden 2007; Golden and Veiga 2005; Virick et al.
2010) have measured the extent of telecommuting as ‘‘the
average number of hours per week spent consistently away
from one’s office working as a telecommuter’’ (Golden
2006, p. 326). In other survey studies, participants are asked
to place themselves in one set of categories (i.e., teleworker
or not; home or office employee; Campione 2008; Fonner
and Roloff 2010; Morganson et al. 2010). These approaches
are illuminating when considering research questions
regarding the effect of being a teleworker or not or regarding
the effects of the frequency of telework. For example,
Fonner and Roloff (2010) employed a dichotomous mea-
surement approach and found that stress and work–family
conflict mediates the positive relationship between tele-
worker status (i.e., teleworker versus non-teleworker) and
job satisfaction. In another study, Hill et al (2003) found that
teleworkers are more motivated than, and perform as well
as, traditional office workers.
A between-person methodology addresses a fundamen-
tally different question than the questions examined here
which concern the phenomenological experience of tele-
working compared to working in a traditional office space
(Borsboom et al. 2003). Previous research has demon-
strated that established relationships between constructs
can change in magnitude or even direction when examined
at a different level of analysis (see Dalal et al. 2009 or
Vancouver et al. 2001 for examples). Even in situations
when the relationship is expected to remain the same at two
levels, testing a multilevel homology is necessary for a
comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon (see
Borsboom et al. 2003 or Chen et al. 2005 for discussions of
this topic). In addition, within-person studies provide an
additional advantage of holding personality traits and job
differences constant across conditions to allow for an
examination of the isolated effects of teleworking. The
present study is the first, of those we are aware, to examine
the day-to-day effects of telework.
A practical example may help us further clarify the
importance of examining telework at the within-person
level of analysis. Two primary challenges that teleworkers
may face are an excess of autonomy and less face-to-face
communication with those at the office (Golden et al.
2008). Given these factors, teleworkers need to display
higher levels of self-management than do employees in a
traditional work arrangement and need to have a trusting
relationship with their supervisor (Hambley et al. 2007;
Golden and Veiga 2008). In the absence of these
J Bus Psychol
conditions, employees may feel relatively satisfied while in
the office and dissatisfied working from home. In a
between-person study, these individuals may provide an
‘‘average’’ rating of overall job satisfaction. In reality,
though, there may be a large discrepancy in state levels of
job satisfaction as a function of where and/or when the
employees are working. In the current study, we examine
telework from the within-person perspective, measuring
state levels of various outcomes while employees are
engaging in telework versus while working in their central
work location.
Worth noting is that there have been a few studies
employing a within-person design to examine the influence
of telework. For instance, Ramsower (1983) assessed job
satisfaction and work group identification of 16 teleworkers
before they began telecommuting and then again 6 months
later. Using a similar study design, Smart Valley Incor-
porated conducted a survey in 1994 examining changes in
several variables (e.g., satisfaction, perceptions of career
advancement) before and after employees began tele-
working. In another longitudinal study, Duxbury et al
(1998) examined potential changes in work–family conflict
before employees began teleworking and then 6 months
later.
Although these longitudinal studies arguably provide a
more rigorous test of the effects of telework on important
outcomes than do cross-sectional ones, they are plagued by
several shortcomings including generally small sample
sizes and having been conducted before the advent of
technological advances which have increased the preva-
lence, and potentially changed the nature, of telework
(Bailey and Kurland 2002; Martins et al. 2004). Even more
relevant here, though, is that these studies, like cross-sec-
tional ones, do not capture the day-to-day phenomenolog-
ical experience of working at home versus working at the
office or the potential consequences of these different
experiences. Again, only a more intensive within-person
study can address those issues. Below, we offer theoreti-
cally derived hypotheses linking telework to several atti-
tudinal and performance-related variables.
The Effects of Telework on Work Outcomes
Self-Rated Job Performance
At the between-person level, studies have shown mixed
findings regarding the relationship between telework and
self-rated performance, with some studies showing positive
associations and some showing negative associations
(Gajendran and Harrision 2007; Golden et al. 2008; Mor-
ganson et al. 2010). The most recent meta-analytic results
revealed essentially no relationship for self-rated perfor-
mance (q = .01; Gajendran and Harrision 2007). However,
using a within-person study design can potentially reveal
findings that between-person designs may obscure. For
example, imagine that, a teleworker and non-teleworker
exhibit the same average level of job performance, but that
the teleworking employee’s performance varies as a func-
tion of whether she is working at home or in the office. She
performs well at home, but less well in the office. In this
case, a within-person study would reveal an effect of work
location, while a between-person study of performance
aggregated across time and location would not.
We expect employees to perceive higher levels of per-
formance while teleworking as opposed to when working
in the office for three reasons. First, teleworking should
provide employees more opportunity to focus on their work
tasks. When working away from the central office, tele-
workers have significantly reduced contact with other
coworkers and supervisors (Golden et al. 2008; Taylor and
Kavanaugh 2005). Although this relative social isolation
can have a downside (e.g., potentially stunted career
advancement, Golden et al. 2008), it also can allow
employees to better focus on their job-related tasks, espe-
cially when the employee normally experiences an
unpleasant or distracting office environment (Chiaburu and
Harrison 2008). Indeed, research has shown that working
from home is associated with fewer interruptions (Bailey
and Kurland 2002; Duxbury and Neufeld 1999). We expect
that the reduced amount of distractions and interferences
during the work day will lead to perceptions that one is able
to accomplish more work when working at home than
while working in the office.
Another potential explanation for a predicted positive
relationship between teleworking and self-rated job per-
formance is the greater autonomy associated with tele-
working. Because nobody is physically monitoring the
teleworking employee (as may be the case in the physical
office environment), teleworkers have greater discretion in
how, under what conditions, and sometimes when, they can
complete tasks (Gajendran and Harrision 2007). In turn,
this greater leeway in structuring one’s work may provide
for greater perceptions of productivity (Baltes et al. 1999;
Humphrey et al. 2007).
A final reason that teleworking would be positively
associated with self-rated performance is that teleworking
can allow for working more hours compared to working in
the office (Noonan and Glass 2012). There are multiple
possible reasons for the expansion of work hours among
teleworkers including the reduction in time spent in com-
muting (Apgar 1998) and the notion that teleworkers may
try to make themselves especially available for electronic
communication so that they can earn future teleworking
privileges (suggested by Noonan and Glass 2012; also see
Sparrow 2000 for a description of telework as a psycho-
logical contract). The increased number of work hours
123

among teleworkers is likely associated with increases in
(and perceptions of) productivity. Given these various
explanations, we expect that
Hypothesis 1 Employees will report higher job perfor-
mance when teleworking as compared to when working in
the office.
Job Satisfaction
A second variable that telework may relate to is daily job
satisfaction. A number of studies have investigated job
satisfaction for teleworkers (Gajendran and Harrision
2007). Meta-analytic results indicate a consistently positive
relationship between telework and job satisfaction. One
explanation for these results is that teleworking is associ-
ated with fewer unanticipated disruptions while working,
thereby leading to less work-related stress and job dissat-
isfaction (Fonner and Roloff 2010). Autonomy also plays a
role in increasing an employee’s level of job satisfaction
(Weaver 1977). As discussed previously, teleworkers have
more autonomy, thereby yielding greater satisfaction (Ga-
jendran and Harrision 2007). Although other studies indi-
cate that working at home can also have affective
drawbacks such as more disruptions from home life
(Golden et al. 2006), the weight of evidence suggests that
telework generally leads one to evaluate one’s job more
favorably.
Paralleling the findings at the between-person level, we
also would expect a positive relationship at the within-
person level, as the lack of interruptions and greater
autonomy and empowerment also should translate into
higher satisfaction on a daily basis. Moreover, from a
phenomenological perspective, employees may be espe-
cially grateful to their organization and for having their
jobs on the days they can work from home, thereby leading
to higher job satisfaction ratings. Owing to these various
factors, we offer the following prediction:
Hypothesis 2 Employees will report higher job satisfac-
tion when teleworking as compared to when working in the
office.
Creative Performance
Although task performance has been the sole performance
dimension of interest in the empirical telework literature,
theory also suggests that telework may relate to creative
performance, a unique part of the performance construct
space (e.g., Janssen and van Yperen 2004). We investigated
creative performance not only because it is essential to
many organizations’ success today (Chen and Kaufmann
2008), but also because other researchers have suggested
that many creative tasks can be accomplished while
123
J Bus Psychol
teleworking (Smith 2007). Although creative work in
contemporary organizations is often done in teams (Hunter
et al. 2012), creative performance discussed here refers to
an individual generating and evaluating ideas.
In general, we expect a positive relationship between
teleworking and creative performance. We base this
assertion on the notion that the situational characteristics of
a teleworking arrangement align themselves with the con-
textual features supportive of creativity (Amabile 1996;
Amabile and Gryskiewicz 1989). For instance, Amabile
and colleagues (Amabile et al. 2002) found that a lack of
interruptions and distractions promote creative perfor-
mance. Given that employees working at home have more
control over how they segment their day (Hill et al. 1996),
they should be less susceptible to such obstacles, and
therefore have greater creative potential. Also, findings
suggest that working in an autonomous and empowering
work environment facilitates creativity, while closely
monitored ones do not (Alge et al. 2006). Here too, the
home environment should yield greater creative capacity
relative to the traditional office environment. In this study,
we assessed creative performance in two ways, by col-
lecting self-rated creative performance and by examining
performance on a creative problem-solving task. We
elaborate on both assessments in the method section. We
expect that
Hypothesis 3 Employees will report and demonstrate
higher creative performance when teleworking as com-
pared to when working in the office.
Method
To investigate these ideas, we conducted a within-person
field study in a large government agency. Daily state levels
of the above constructs were measured on five consecutive
days, during each of which employees were either tele-
working or not. All methods and analysis plans were
approved by a university-sponsored Human Subjects
Review Board.
Participants
The sample consisted of 180 employees (56 males, 106
females, and 18 who did not respond to the gender item) at a
large federal government agency. The sample was identified
by asking leaders from all of the major offices within the
agency for a list of individuals in their offices who had
signed telework agreements, indicating that they are allowed
to telework. The final sample list contained 192 individuals.
The inclusion criteria for putting an individual’s name on the
list was at the discretion of office leaders and unknown to
J Bus Psychol
the researchers. Each individual on the final sample list
received the invitation to participate in the study each day,
regardless of whether or not he or she completed the pre-
vious day’s survey. The study was presented as a collabo-
rative effort between academic researchers and the agency’s
human capital division. On the first day each individual
participated, he or she was routed to a section of the survey
containing demographic items. The recruitment emails were
sent from a contact person within the organization who was
involved in the implementation of the telework program in
this government agency. One hundred and eighty employees
of the 192 who agreed to participate responded to at least
one of the five surveys. The response rates for each of the
5 days were 92, 75, 79, 77, and 61 % respectively, with an
average response rate of 77 %. The relatively low-attrition
rate and high-response rate were likely due to the fact that
these employees volunteered to participate despite not
receiving any (e.g., financial) incentive. In addition, the
management of the organization was very supportive of
teleworking policies, which could be another explanation for
the high-response rate. These 180 individuals composed the
final sample.
On average, employees teleworked about 2 days
(M = 2.13 days) during the week in which the survey was
conducted. Participants were also asked how often they
teleworked in general (not that particular week). This result
was similar (M = 2.23). The proportions of teleworkers
(versus employees working in the office) on each day were
also fairly similar across the days of the week (Mon = .45,
Tue = .28, Wed = .47, Thur = .56, Fri = .37). The sam-
ple was composed of mostly non-supervisors (79.9 %). The
organization requested that we ask about age in terms of
generation and remove any questions specifically about job
titles or tasks in order to maintain anonymity. Using this
classification, the sample included employees that spanned
three generations; Baby Boomers made up 49 % of the
sample (approximately aged 45–65), those who identified
themselves as Generation X (approximately aged 35–45)
made up about one-third of the sample (34 %), 11 %
identified themselves as Millennial, (approximately aged
18–35), and 6 % did not identify their generation.
Procedure
Pilot testing of the study took place before the actual data
collection. For each of the five consecutive days, the sur-
veys were distributed to a list of individuals (both within
and external to the organization) who agreed to participate
in pilot testing. Responses and feedback were collected to
ensure that all aspects of the data-collection process were
functioning properly.
The actual study took place over five consecutive work
days (Monday through Friday) of one specific week. Each
day, the employees received an e-mail survey invitation
from an employee internal to the agency. Participants were
instructed to complete each survey on the day they received
it, and as close as possible to the time that they received the
email. The link was sent out at 3 pm each day. A website
link in each of the emails was provided for employees to
complete the survey online. Each survey took *10–15 min
to complete. After completing the final survey, respondents
were thanked for their participation.
Responses were collected using a secure online survey
tool. The survey data were encrypted and securely trans-
ferred to an online survey database. The surveying website
did not record personally identifiable information. Partici-
pants were assigned a unique identifier so that their
responses could be tracked across the 5 days while still
maintaining their anonymity.
Materials
The survey included measures of self-rated job perfor-
mance, job satisfaction, and creativity. Employees
responded with reference to that particular day (e.g.,
‘‘Today, compared to other days, I am…’’). This approach
to item wording has been shown to better capture con-
structs at the level of interest (van Mierlo et al. 2009). The
five surveys were identical with the exception of the spe-
cific open-ended creativity prompts at the end of each
survey.
Teleworking Status
Each day, respondents indicated whether they were work-
ing at home (or at another location away from the office,
such as a coffee shop) or at the office. Data were coded
such that a 0 indicated the employee was working in the
office and a 1 indicated the employee was teleworking that
day.
Job Performance
Self-reported job performance was measured using a scale
from Williams and Anderson (1991) composed of seven
items. Sample items include ‘‘I performed tasks that are
expected of me’’ and ‘‘I met formal performance require-
ments of the job’’. The response options for these items
ranged from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree.
Coefficient alpha over the 5 days ranged from .80 to .88
(average a = .86).
Daily Job Satisfaction
The measure of state job satisfaction included five items
and used a five-point scale, with response options ranging
123
 J Bus Psychol

Table 1 Observation level Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

correlation matrix
1. Telework status .43 .49 1
2. Job satisfaction 5.69 1.12 .04 1
Note S-R means self-rated.
Telework status was coded 0 3. Job performance 6.16 .74 .12* .31* 1
and 1, where 1 indicates the 4. S-R creative performance 4.75 1.21 -.01 .26* .14* 1
employee was teleworking on 5. Objective creative performance 3.60 .81 .12* -.04* .02 .12* 1
that day
6. Typical number of days teleworked 2.23 1.58 .33* .10* .02 .05 .01 1
* p \ .05

from ‘‘strongly disagree’’ to ‘‘strongly agree’’ (Bono and
Judge 2003, adapted from Brayfield and Rothe 1951).
Sample items include ‘‘Presently, I feel fairly satisfied with
my job’’ and ‘‘Today I am enthusiastic about my work’’.
Coefficient alpha over the 5 days ranged from .70 to .78
(average a = .73)
Self-Rated Creative Performance
Self-rated creative performance was measured along two
dimensions: idea generation and idea evaluation using a
seven-point scale (from ‘‘strongly disagree’’ to ‘‘strongly
agree’’; Brooks-Shesler and Tetrick 2010). While the
original scale has nine dimensions of innovation, these
two dimensions were selected because they most closely
mapped onto the definition of creativity (i.e., the gener-
ation of ideas that are both novel and useful; Sternberg
and Lubart 1996), while the other dimensions were more
closely related to the unique aspects of innovation. The
idea-generation dimension captures the novelty aspect of
the definition. After a sufficient list of novel ideas is
generated, the individual must evaluate each idea for its
usefulness, thus the inclusion of the idea-evaluation
dimension. A sample idea-generation item is ‘‘I suggested
improvements to products or services’’ and a sample
idea-evaluation item is ‘‘I anticipated consequences of
implementing a given idea’’ (Brooks-Shesler and Tetrick
2010).
Based on the theoretical inclusion of these two dimen-
sions to reflect a singular definition of creativity, we con-
ducted an exploratory factor analysis to test the underlying
structure of the variables. Results suggested a single
underlying factor. In addition, we conducted a multilevel
confirmatory factor analysis (given the repeated measures
nature of the data), and a single factor solution was again
supported (v2(48) = 196.27; RMSEA = .07; CFI = .99;
TLI = .99). Based on this theoretical and empirical ratio-
nale, we collapsed these two dimensions to reflect the
traditionally accepted definition of creativity. Coefficient
alpha over the 5 days ranged from .91 to .95 (average
a = .94).
Objective Creative Performance
Respondents were given an open-ended prompt at the end
of each survey and instructed to spend 5 min responding to
the prompt. For example, the prompt on the third day was
‘‘Imagine that you are a city planner to a new major city
that is being built. One of the serious concerns of the new
residents is the traffic that is expected with the new busi-
nesses and population moving to the area. Describe a
solution that will minimize the amount of traffic that
people will experience.’’ Responses to each of the five
prompts were coded on five dimensions of creativity by
two independent coders on a 1–5 scale (poor to excellent
performance), who were blind to the telework status of the
employees. The five dimensions were quality, originality,
usefulness, elegance, and descriptiveness. Coders were
trained, and the inter-rater reliabilities ranged from .69 to
.80 by time point, with the average reliability being .76.
Given the sufficient inter-rater reliability, the five ratings
were combined to form one overall creativity score
(Amabile 1982, 1983).
Results
Given the nested structure of the data (time points within
persons), random coefficient modeling (RCM) was used to
analyze the results. Table 1 contains the within-person
(i.e., observation level) correlation matrix with means and
standard deviations for all the included variables. Stata
version 12 was used to conduct the analyses. Because we
reasoned that experience/familiarity with teleworking may
alter the daily experience of telework, we asked partici-
pants to report the number of days they typically telework
each week, and we included this as a between-person
control variable.
We assessed a series of models, one for each of the
outcomes (i.e., hypotheses). These results are presented in
Table 2. We also calculated a level 1 pseudo-R2 (a more
detailed description can be found in LaHuis et al. 2013).
We chose this calculation of pseudo-R2 for multilevel
models because the variable of interest (i.e., telework

123
J Bus Psychol
Table 2 Results of within-person analysis: telework status as predictor
Outcome c for telework
status
Job performance .21*
Job satisfaction .08*
S-R creative performance -.00
Objective creative performance .17*
Note Telework status was coded 0 and 1 where 1 indicates teleworking on that day
* p \ .05
a
From LaHuis et al. 2013
status) was a level-1 variable. Including a calculation that
reflected an overall model R2 would have been misleading,
due to the inclusion of a level-2 control variable (i.e.,
typical number of days teleworked).
Hypothesis 1 predicted that telework would positively
relate to self-rated job performance. Results show that
telework significantly predicted job performance, such that
individuals reported higher levels of job performance when
working at home versus when working in the office
(c = .21, p \ .05, pseudo-R2 = .02). This result supported
Hypothesis 1. Hypothesis 2 predicted that telework would
positively relate to job satisfaction. RCM results revealed
that teleworking was positively related to satisfaction
(c = .08, p \ .05, pseudo-R2 = .06), thus supporting
Hypothesis 2. Finally, Hypothesis 3 predicted teleworking
would positively relate to creative performance. This
Hypothesis was tested using two indices of creative per-
formance. The first was a self-rated measure, and the other
was objective ratings of creativity. RCM results showed no
relationship between telework and self-rated creative per-
formance (c = -.00, p [ .05, pseudo-R2 = .01). For the
objectively rated creative performance task, though, RCM
results demonstrated that individuals performed better
while teleworking (c = .17, p \ .05, pseudo-R2 = .04),
thus providing partial support for Hypothesis 3. Our results
supported our hypotheses regarding the positive relation-
ship between telework and self-rated job performance, job
satisfaction, and objective creative performance. RCM
analysis did not provide support for our hypothesis
regarding self-rated creative performance.
Discussion
This study provides two main contributions toward under-
standing telework and its role in individual work-related
well-being and performance. First, responding to the call to
broaden the methods examining telework made by Gajen-
dran and Harrision (2007), we examined the effects of
teleworking at a within-person, day-to-day level. To the best
of our knowledge, this was the first investigation of the
c for # of days Intercept Level 1
typically telworked psuedo-R2a
-.00 6.05 .02
.07 5.43 .06
.07 4.52 .01
-.01 3.54 .04
effects of teleworking on a given day on these various
outcomes. Second, this study added an additional dimension
of performance that has not been previously examined in the
scope of telework. Below, we elaborate on the implications
for research and practice of the results of this study. We then
offer some future directions that follow from these findings
and also note some of the study limitations.
Implications of the Study Findings
The results of this within-person investigation largely
supported the study hypotheses. Consistent with predic-
tions, we found that employees reported higher levels of
state job satisfaction, and self-rated job-performance when
teleworking. They also did better on a creative problem-
solving task when working at home. This said, the daily
benefits of teleworking may not be universal, as we found
no difference in terms of self-rated creativity as a function
of work location. While this latter null finding does not
suggest that teleworking is negative per se, it does warrant
some consideration.
Although the self-reported creativity results did not con-
firm our hypothesis, we believe there are several potential
explanations for this null finding. One possible reason comes
from consideration of the current sample and of the objec-
tive creativity task. Our sample was from a large govern-
ment organization that, like many government entities, is
somewhat bureaucratic. Consistent with Weber’s (1968)
original conception of bureaucracy, this work arrangement
removes employee individuality from the workings of the
organization. In other words, the organization has strict
policies and guidelines for dealing with virtually all tasks
and contingencies, thereby limiting any role for creative
action or response. As such, creative performance, as
reflected in the current self-report measure, may just not be a
large component of the job. Conversely, the objective
measure taps more of the potential for creative behaviors—
which are applicable to many domains (see Montag et al.
2012 for a review). In addition, some have suggested that
self-reported creative performance reflects creative self-
efficacy, not creative performance (Hunter et al. 2012). A
123

final explanation for the null finding regarding self-rated
creativity is that, while the items on the scale were primarily
focused on individual idea generation and evaluation, they
suggested some level of interaction with others (e.g.,
‘‘Suggested ideas’’). Plausibly, individuals are able to
engage in more individual creativity on days when they
telework (as was found with the objective creativity mea-
sure) but tend to engage in more interactive forms of crea-
tivity when working in the office. Obviously, these
explanations are speculative, and studies addressing the
effects of telework on creativity in different contexts and
with different measures certainly would be informative.
Our results also have some additional implications for
practice. First, the results seem to suggest that managers
might encourage or allow employees to do tasks that require
creativity from home (which may require rearranging
deadlines, meetings, or scheduled telework days). Second,
the results show that individuals rate themselves as being
more productive on days when they were teleworking which
indicates that, at least in certain types of jobs, working from
home can bolster feelings of productivity and accomplish-
ment. While corroborating these findings with an objective
measure of performance would be ideal, the findings
regarding objective creative performance provide some
support for the notion that working from home improves
performance on some tasks. Thus, managers should consider
granting employees the opportunity to telework when pos-
sible, and perhaps especially on days when employees feel
they can be most productive (e.g., depending on the type of
task on which employees are working and the amount of
interruptions they anticipate at home on different days).
Finally, the finding regarding job satisfaction indicates that
telework could be used as a tool to increase daily job sat-
isfaction among employees who may be at a low point or to
maintain satisfaction among employees who have higher
levels of satisfaction. The findings from our study show that
allowing employees to telework even 1 day per pay period
can influence key outcomes such as performance and satis-
faction on that day. However, it is also important to consider
the negative influence that telework can have on other out-
comes not measured in our study, such as family–work
conflict, quality of coworker relationships, and increased
feelings of professional isolation (Golden 2006, 2012;
Golden et al. 2008).
Future Directions
The present findings suggest several important directions for
future research. Foremost, studies attempting to explain
potentially differential relationships at the between- versus
within-person levels would be useful. We envision several
options for doing so. For example, researchers could
examine mechanisms which mediate the relationships at
123
J Bus Psychol
different levels. As an illustration of this approach, we
consider the case of job satisfaction. Based on other
research, one reasonably might expect telework to influence
daily reports of satisfaction largely through its influence on
daily affect (or the affective component of satisfaction; see
Weiss 2002). Conversely, we would expect cognitions
related to issues like fairness or positive organizational
support to explain the influence of telework on more general
and longer-term reports of satisfaction (see Kaplan et al.
2009). A related strategy would entail using some sort of
cognitive interviewing or ‘‘think aloud’’ procedure to reveal
the cognitions about telework that differentially underlie its
relationship with other variables (e.g., satisfaction) assessed
daily versus in general (see Willis et al. 1999).
Adopting a ‘‘bottom–up’’ approach to examine the expe-
rience of telework would be especially useful because it
would provide a much more nuanced understanding of when
telework is more or less beneficial. As documented in the
telework literature, the effects of telework on work outcomes
are quite variable (see Duxbury et al. 1998; Golden and
Veiga 2005). While some research has started to identify
moderators of the effects of telework (e.g. Gajendran and
Harrision 2007; Golden and Veiga 2005; Konradt et al.
2003), knowledge about moderating variables is limited, and
knowledge about the granular experiences that underlie the
effects of these moderators is non-existent. Qualitative
research would seem useful in expanding the identification of
moderating factors and revealing how these factors operate.
In turn, this information could help organizations implement
and manage telework programs in the most effective manner.
In addition to better understanding the influence of
telework at these two levels and understanding the phe-
nomenology of telework, we would call for research
examining telework in relation to other dimensions of job
performance, such as organizational citizenship behavior
(OCB) and counterproductive work behavior (CWB; Rot-
undo and Sackett 2002). Conceivably, the behaviors that
constitute OCBs and CWBs differ in frequency, if not also
in actual nature, when working at home versus in the office.
Studies addressing this notion would seem to have both
theoretical and applied significances.
Study Limitations
This study was not without some notable limitations. First,
we collected the data from a single organization over the
course of a single week. Somewhat limiting concern about
this issue, though, is the fact that we did obtain significant
effects even within a given week. Presumably, studies
considering longer stretches of time may produce even
stronger effects owing to greater reliability. In any case, we
would encourage researchers to examine the within-person
effects of telework over a longer period of time and also
J Bus Psychol
within given days. Obviously, though, we recognize the
practical challenges involved in collecting such data.
Second, with respect to the sample, these employees
chose to telework; they were not obligated to do so. In
contrast, many employees are (and will be) forced to
telework, especially given the presumed (if not always
accurate) organizational benefits of having a telework
policy (e.g., reduced costs, increased morale; Apgar 1998).
The degree to which teleworking is a voluntary activity
may be an important moderator of its effects (Gajendran
and Harrision 2007). Also, at the within-person level, the
degree to which individuals can choose which particular
days and times they telework also may moderate its con-
sequences. Studies investigating these factors would be
useful.
An additional limitation of the current study is that, due
to survey’s response-time restrictions, we did not directly
measure the mediating processes (e.g., different task types,
autonomy) proposed to explain the effects of telework.
While meta-analytic evidence does speak to their functi-
onings at the between-person level (Gajendran and Harri-
sion 2007), these mediators do not necessarily act in the
same manner or to the same degree at the within-person
level (Chen et al. 2005).
A final notable limitation is our primary reliance on self-
report data. While there are certainly limitations associated
with relying on self-report data (e.g., Donaldson and Grant-
Vallone 2002), the nature of the topic and design (i.e.,
employees working away from the office) presents addi-
tional challenges for collecting other types of data (e.g.,
daily coworker or supervisor ratings of performance). One
of the defining attributes of telework is engaging in work
activities in a remote location away from the central
workplace (Bailey and Kurland 2002). This makes the use
of other report measures of attitudes and work behaviors
more difficult, if not impossible.
In addition, three considerations suggest that the use of
self-report data may not have been problematic in the
present case. First, as discussed above, respondents did not
universally provide higher ratings for all of the variables
when working at home. Specifically, we did not find
within-person differences for self-rated creativity. We
imagine that if respondents were providing overly positive
ratings, they would do so for all variables. Thus, this null
result provides some evidence that respondents were
answering truthfully. A second consideration is that, even
if employees did knowingly inflate the positivity of their
responses when working at home, such response is not
necessarily problematic. That employees want to telework
is a good thing for many organizations (Apgar 1998).
Obviously, if employees are not performing as well at
home, then that would be a concern. However, the evi-
dence generally does not suggest that is the case. At least,
some evidences suggest that telework positively predicts
objective and supervisory-rated performance (Gajendran
and Harrision 2007). Thus, even if some employees did
intentionally provide overly favorable ratings, we would
suggest that dismissing those ratings would be an unnec-
essarily harsh restriction. Third, in regards to job perfor-
mance, while self-rated performance might not truly reflect
job performance, in this situation, it could at the very least
reflect a motivational aspect or a feeling of productivity.
Despite these limitations, we believe that this study fills
an important gap in the telework literature. By demon-
strating the effects of telework at the within-, as opposed to
between-, person levels of analysis, we begin to understand
how teleworker performance and attitudes change on a
day-to-day basis. In addition, we considered variables
previously unexplored in the telework literature. Telework
is a work arrangement that is growing rapidly and influ-
ences key workplace outcomes and warrants more attention
in the research literature.
Acknowledgments We would like to thank the government agency
representatives who partnered with us and facilitated the data collection
process. In addition, we want to thank the Nancy and Jorge Kfoury
Foundation for partially funding this research, and the two anonymous
reviewers who helped shape this article to its current form.
References
Alge, B. J., Ballinger, G. A., Tangirala, S., & Oakley, J. L. (2006).
Information privacy in organizations: Empowering creative and
extrarole performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91,
221–232. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.221.
Amabile, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual
assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 43, 997–1013. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.43.5.997.
Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A
componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 45, 357–376. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.
357.
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to ‘‘The Social
Psychology of Creativity’’. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Amabile, T. M., & Gryskiewicz, N. D. (1989). The creative environ-
ment scales: Work environment inventory. Creativity Research
Journal, 2, 231–253. doi:10.1080/10400418909534321.
Amabile, T. M., Hadley, C. N., & Kramer, S. J. (2002). Creativity
under the gun. Harvard Business Review, 80, 52–61.
Apgar, M. (1998). The alternative workplace: Changing where and
how people work. Harvard Business Review, 76, 121–136.
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, 283–400.
doi:10.1002/job.144.
Baltes, B. B., Briggs, T. E., Huff, J. W., Wright, J. A., & Neuman, G.
A. (1999). Flexible and compressed workweek schedules: A
meta-analysis of their effects on work-related criteria. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 84, 496–513. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.84.4.
496.
Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Self-concordance at work: Toward
understanding the motivational effects of transformational
123

leaders. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 554–571. doi:10.
2307/30040649.
Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., & van Heerden, J. (2003). The
theoretical status of latent variables. Psychological Review, 110,
203–219. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.110.2.203.
Brayfield, A. H., & Rothe, H. E. (1951). An index of job satisfaction.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 35, 307–311. doi:10.1037/
h0055617.
Brooks-Shesler, L., & Tetrick, L. E. (2010). Perceptions of the
frequency and effectiveness of organizational innovations. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological
Association, San Diego, CA.
Campione, W. (2008). Employed women’s well-being: The global
and daily impact of work. Journal of Family and Economic
Issues, 29, 346–361. doi:10.1007/s10834-008-9107-x.
Chen, G., Bliese, P. D., & Mathieu, J. E. (2005). Conceptual
framework and statistical procedures for delineating and testing
multilevel theories of homology. Organizational Research
Methods, 8, 375–409. doi:10.1177/1094428105280056.
Chen, M., & Kaufmann, G. (2008). Employee creativity and R&D: A
critical review. Creativity and Innovation Management, 17,
71–76. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2008.00471.x.
Chiaburu, D. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2008). Do peers make the place?
Conceptual synthesis and meta-analysis of coworker effects on
perceptions, attitudes, OCBs, and performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 93, 1082–1103. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.
93.5.1082.
Dalal, R. S., Lam, H., Weiss, H. M., Welch, E. R., & Hulin, C. L.
(2009). A within-person approach to work behavior and
performance: Concurrent and lagged citizenship–counterproduc-
tivity associations, and dynamic relationships with affect and
overall job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 52,
1051–1066. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2009.44636148.
Donaldson, S. I., & Grant-Vallone, E. J. (2002). Understanding self-
report bias in organizational behavior research. Journal of Business
and Psychology, 17, 245–260. doi:10.1023/A:1019637632584.
Duxbury, L. E., Higgins, C. A., & 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.
Duxbury, L., & Neufeld, D. (1999). An empirical evaluation of the
impacts of telecommuting on intra-organizational communica-
tion. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management,
1, 1–28.
Fonner, K. L., & Roloff, M. E. (2010). Why teleworkers are more
satisfied with their jobs than are office-based workers: When less
contact is beneficial. Journal of Applied Communication
Research, 38, 336–361. doi:10.1080/00909882.2010.513998.
Gajendran, R. S., & Harrision, D. A. (2007). The good, the bad, and
the unknown about telecommuting: Meta-analysis of psycho-
logical mediators and individual consequences. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 92, 1524–1541. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.
92.6.1524.
Golden, T. D. (2006). The role of relationships in understanding
telecommuter satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
27, 319–340. doi:10.1002/job.369.
Golden, T. D. (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.
Golden, T. D. (2012). Altering the effects of work and family conflict
on exhaustion: Telework during traditional and non-traditional
work hours. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27, 255–269.
Golden, T. D., & Veiga, J. F. (2005). The impact of extent of
telecommuting on job satisfaction: Resolving inconsistent
123
J Bus Psychol
findings. Journal of Management, 31, 301–318. doi:10.1177/
0149206304271768.
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, 77–88. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.12.009.
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, interacting
face-to-face, or having access to communication-enhancing
technology matter? Journal of Applied Psychology, 93,
1412–1421. doi:10.1037/a0012722.
Golden, T. D., Veiga, J. F., & Simsek, Z. (2006). Telecommuting’s
differential impact on work-family conflict: Is there no place like
home? Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1340–1350. doi:10.
1037/0021-9010.91.6.1340.
Hambley, L. A., O’Neill, T. A., & Kline, T. J. B. (2007). Virtual team
leadership: The effects of leadership style and communication
medium on team interaction styles and outcomes. Organiza-
tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103, 1–20.
doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.09.004.
Hill, E. J., Ferris, M., & Märtinson, V. (2003). Does it matter where
you work? A comparison of how three work venues (traditional
office, virtual office, and home office) influence aspects of work
and personal/family life. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63,
220–241. doi:10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00042-3.
Hill, E. J., Hawkins, A. J., & Miller, B. C. (1996). Work and family in the
virtual office: Perceived influences of mobile telework. Family
Relations, 45, 293–301. doi:10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00042-3.
Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007).
Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design
features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of
the work design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92,
1332–1356. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1332.
Hunter, S. T., Cushenberry, L., & Friedrich, T. (2012). Hiring an
innovative workforce: A necessary yet uniquely challenging
endeavor. Human Resource Management Review, 22, 303–322.
doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2012.01.001.
Janssen, O., & van Yperen, N. W. (2004). Employees’ goal
orientations, the quality of leader-member exchange, and the
outcomes of job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of
Management Journal, 47, 368–384.
Kaplan, S. A., Warren, C., Barsky, A., & Thoresen, C. (2009). A note
on the relationship between affect(ivity) and differing concep-
tualizations of job satisfaction: Some unexpected meta-analytic
findings. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psy-
chology, 18, 29–54. doi:10.1080/13594320701873264.
Konradt, U., Hertel, G., & Schmook, R. (2003). Quality of
management by objectives, task-related stressors, and non-task-
related stressors as predictors of stress and job satisfaction
among teleworkers. European Journal of Work and Organiza-
tional Psychology, 12, 61–79. doi:10.1080/13594320344000020.
LaHuis, D. M., Hartman, M. J., Clark, P. C., & Hakoyama, S. (2013).
Explained variance measures for multilevel models. In: Poster
presented at the 28th annual conference of the Society for
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Houston, TX.
Lister, K., & Harnish, T. (2011). The state of telework in the U.S.: How
individuals, business, and government benefit. Telework Research
Network. Retrieved February 2, 2013 from http://www.workshift
ing.com/downloads/downloads/Telework-Trends-US.pdf.
Martins, L. L., Gilson, L. L., & Maynard, M. T. (2004). Virtual team:
What do we know and where do we go from there? Journal of
Management, 30, 805–835. doi:10.1016/j.jm.2004.05.002.
Montag, T., Maertz, C. P., & Baer, M. (2012). A critical analysis of
the workplace creativity criterion space. Journal of Management,
38, 1362–1386.
J Bus Psychol
Morganson, V. J., Major, D. A., Oborn, K. L., Verive, J. M., &
Heelan, M. P. (2010). Comparing telework locations and
traditional work arrangements: Differences in work-life balance
support, job satisfaction, and inclusion. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 25, 578–595. doi:10.1108/02683941011056941.
Noonan, M. C., & Glass, J. L. (2012). The hard truth about
telecommuting. Monthly Labor Review, 135, 38–45.
Ramsower, R. M. (1983). Telecommuting: The organizational and
behavioral effects of working from home. Ann Arbor, MI:
University Microfilms International.
Rotundo, M., & Sackett, P. R. (2002). The relative importance of task,
citizenship, and counterproductive performance to global ratings
of job performance: A policy-capturing approach. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 87, 66–80. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.66.
Smart Valley Telecommuting Team. (1994). Smart valley telecom-
muting guide. San Mateo, CA: Smart Valley, Incorporated.
Smith, P. G. (2007). Enhancing flexibility in dispersed product
development teams. In S. P. Mac Gregor & T. Torres-Coronas
(Eds.), Higher creativity for virtual teams: Developing platforms
for co-creation (pp. 246–263). Hershey, PA: Information
Science Reference/IGIGlobal.
Sparrow, P. (2000). Teleworking and the psychological contract: A
new division of labor. In K. D. Lamond & P. Standen (Eds.),
Managing telework: Perspectives from human resource man-
agement and work psychology. London: Thomson Learning.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, R. J. (1996). Investing in creativity. American
Psychologist, 51, 677–688. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.51.7.677.
Taylor, D. S., & Kavanaugh, J. K. (2005). Developing a model of
leadership in the teleworking environment: A qualitative study.
Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications, and Con-
flict, 9, 73–95.
Telework Enhancement Act of 2010, Public Law 111-292, 124 Stat.
3165 (2010).
United States Office of Personnel Management. (2010). Status of
telework in the Federal Government. Retrieved January 20, 2013
from http://telework.gov/Reports_and_Studies/Annual_Reports/
2010teleworkreport.pdf.
Van Mierlo, H., Vermunt, J. K., & Rutte, C. G. (2009). Composing
group-level constructs from individual-level survey data. Orga-
nizational Research Methods, 12, 368–392. doi:10.1177/
1094428107309322.
Vancouver, J. B., Thompson, C. M., & Williams, A. A. (2001). The
changing signs in the relationship among self-efficacy, personal
goals, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,
605–620. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.4.605.
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 orienta-
tion and worker type. Human Relations, 63, 137–154. doi:10.
1177/0018726709349198.
Weaver, C. N. (1977). Relationships among pay, race, sex, occupa-
tional prestige, supervision, work autonomy, and job satisfaction
in a national sample. Personnel Psychology, 30, 437–445.
doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1977.tb00436.x.
Weber, M. (1968). Economy and society. Los Angeles, CA:
University of California Press.
Weiss, H. M. (2002). Deconstructing job satisfaction: Separating
evaluations, beliefs and affective experiences. Human Resource
Management Review, 12, 173–194. doi:10.1016/S1053-
4822(02)00045-1.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and
organizational commitment as predictors of organizational
citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17,
601–617. doi:10.1177/014920639101700305.
Willis, G., DeMaio, T., & Harris-Kojetin, B. (1999). Is the
bandwagon headed to the methodological promised land?
Evaluating the validity of cognitive interviewing techniques. In
M. Sirken, D. Herrmann, S. Schechter, N. Schwarz, J. Tanur, &
R. Tourangeau (Eds.), Cognition and survey research (pp.
133–153). New York: Wiley.
World at work. (2011). Telework 2011: A world at work special
report. Retrieved January 27, 2013 from http://www.worldat
work.org/waw/adimLink?id=53034.
123