Journal of Business and Psychology

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-018-9530-4

ORIGINAL PAPER

Unpacking the Role of a Telecommuter’s Job in Their Performance:

Examining Job Complexity, Problem Solving, Interdependence,
and Social Support
Timothy D. Golden 1 & Ravi S. Gajendran 2

# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract
Despite telecommuting’s growing popularity, its implication for telecommuter job performance is a matter of on-going public
debate. Moreover, empirical evidence that could address this issue is scarce and conflicting. This study therefore not only
examines whether telecommuting impacts job performance, but also investigates characteristics of the telecommuter’s work that
might help or hinder their ability to perform their job. Integrating work design research with theorizing about telecommuting, our
theoretical framework proposes that two knowledge characteristics, namely job complexity and problem solving, and two social
characteristics, specifically interdependence and social support, moderate the extent of telecommuting–job performance rela-
tionship. We test our framework using matched data from telecommuters and their supervisors (N = 273) in an organization with a
voluntary telecommuting program. Findings indicate that for telecommuters who held complex jobs, for those in jobs involving
low levels of interdependence and for those in jobs with low levels of social support, the extent of telecommuting had a positive
association with job performance. Across all moderators considered, the extent of telecommuting’s association with job perfor-
mance ranged from benign to positive; findings did not support negative associations between the extent of telecommuting and
job performance regardless of the level of each moderator examined. These results suggest the need to investigate the extent of
telecommuting as well as the nature of the telecommuter’s job when studying work outcomes such as job performance, and that
more research is needed.

Keywords Telecommuting . Telework . Virtual work . Job performance . Work design research . Job characteristics

Telecommuting is a widely popular work mode that has been
experiencing rapid worldwide growth in Asia, India, Latin
America, and many other areas of the industrialized world
(GlobalWorkplaceAnalytics.com 2016; Reaney 2012). In the
USA alone, over 24% of the workforce uses some form of this
work arrangement (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2016). Due to its
* Timothy D. Golden
goldent@rpi.edu
Ravi S. Gajendran
rgajendr@fiu.edu
1
Lally School of Management, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 110
8th Street, Troy, NY 12180, USA
2
Department of Management and International Business, Florida
International University, Modesto A. Maidique Campus, 11200 S.W.
8th St, MANGO 472, Miami, FL 33199, USA
widespread adoption and its potential to impact workplace out-
comes, telecommuting has been the subject of significant high-
profile debate regarding its performance implications. Corporate
CEOs and other prominent organizational leaders have hotly
contested whether telecommuting helps or hurts employee per-
formance (Humer 2013; Swisher 2013; Simons 2017), with
widely publicized discourse from both supporters and detractors
(Bloom 2014; Guynn 2013; Isidore 2017; Lynch 2013).
While previous research addressing the implications of
telecommuting for job performance has shed important in-
sights, this research has tended to compare telecommuters to
non-telecommuters (Allen et al. 2015) utilizing self-ratings of
performance (DuBrin 1991; Hill et al. 2003; Gajendran and
Harrison 2007). Indeed, prior meta-analytical evidence inves-
tigating telecommuter job performance has been based solely
on broad generalized assessments of those who Buse^
telecommuting (versus do not use telecommuting), rather than
more realistic assessments which investigate how the extent or

amount per week of telecommuting might affect an individ-
ual’s performance (Gajendran and Harrison 2007). Whereas
the extent of telecommuting varies considerably between in-
dividuals (e.g., Allen et al. 2015; Golden and Veiga 2005;
Golden et al. 2006), prior studies investigating telecommuters
compared to non-telecommuters do little to help us understand
telecommuting’s true impact on performance. It is therefore
important to investigate among those who use this arrange-
ment, whether more extensive telecommuting is better or
worse for key outcomes such as job performance than less
extensive telecommuting.
Prior research on the effects of telecommuting for job per-
formance sheds little light on this issue. While a few more
recent studies drawing upon subsets of data enable us to either
directly or indirectly examine associations between the extent
of telecommuting and aspects of performance (Gajendran
et al. 2015; Golden et al. 2008; Kossek et al. 2006), the evi-
dence is limited. Moreover, this existing evidence is inconsis-
tent in the magnitude and direction of effect sizes, ranging
from negative (Golden et al. 2008) to positive or unsupported
(Gajendran et al. 2015; Kossek et al. 2006), suggesting the
possible operation of moderators that could influence the
strength of this relationship.
Existing research on telecommuters has also largely ig-
nored aspects of the job itself that might influence work out-
comes, and studies which have investigated individual char-
acteristics of a telecommuters’ job have not done so compre-
hensively nor have they considered job performance. The lim-
ited research that has examined a telecommuter’s work has
tended to investigate the general kinds of jobs that are amena-
ble to telecommuting, or examined how telecommuting
changes the experience of work by altering qualities such as
autonomy, exhaustion, isolation, or knowledge sharing (Allen
et al. 2015; Gajendran and Harrison 2007; Golden 2006a;
Golden and Raghuram 2010). Even less research has exam-
ined work characteristics as contextual features potentially
influencing telecommuting’s relationship with work out-
comes. For instance, Golden et al. (2006) examined the impact
of autonomy and schedule control as moderators of
telecommuting’s impact on work-family conflict. Similarly,
Golden and Veiga (2005) examined aspects of work that in-
fluence telecommuting’s links with job satisfaction. Yet, this
research did not examine job performance as an outcome var-
iable, and it has only examined a limited number of work
characteristics. Without a more systematic examination of a
telecommuter’s job, researchers and practitioners alike are
hindered in their ability to draw conclusions regarding
telecommuting’s potential impact on job performance.
Hence, in this paper, we seek to make two primary contri-
butions that advance the conversation beyond the simplified
debate regarding whether telecommuting is universally good
or bad for job performance, and instead toward a more in-
formed discussion regarding under what conditions
J Bus Psychol
telecommuting might help or hinder job performance. First,
using matched data between telecommuters and supervisors
(N = 273), we build on research which investigates the extent
of an individual’s telecommuting (e.g., Golden and Veiga
2005; Golden et al. 2006) to examine whether the extent of
telecommuting is associated with alterations in a supervisor’s
assessment of the telecommuter’s job performance. Second
and equally important, by examining if the nature of the work
itself might influence telecommuting’s impact on job perfor-
mance, we build upon work design research (e.g., Morgeson
and Humphrey 2006; Humphrey et al. 2007) to provide im-
portant distinctions regarding the nature of the work per-
formed while telecommuting and its implications.
Specifically, we examine two primary knowledge-based char-
acteristics of their work, namely job complexity and problem
solving (Morgeson and Humphrey 2006), and two social char-
acteristics, including interdependence and social support
(Morgeson and Humphrey 2006). In this way, we hope to
begin disentangling prior more generalized investigations
treating telecommuters as homogenous groups to more fine-
grained investigations, in order to shed important insights into
telecommuting’s enigmatic and hotly debated link with job
performance.
Theory and Hypotheses
Telecommuting is a work arrangement wherein individuals
Bspend some portion of their time away from the conventional
workplace, working from home, and communicate by way of
computer-based technology^ (Golden and Veiga 2005: 304;
Nilles 1994). An important and often overlooked aspect of
telecommuting is that although it involves a substitution of
the location of work to a new work environment, it is typically
not accompanied by a change in the general scope or respon-
sibilities of the work itself. Indeed, researchers have largely
overlooked this distinction, preferring instead to examine
telecommuting as a more omnibus phenomenon the outcomes
of which are driven predominantly by the physical environ-
ment (Bailey and Kurland 2002; Gajendran and Harrison
2007). In particular, despite the significant transformation of
the work environment and location due to telecommuting,
core characteristics of the work that telecommuters perform
often remain unchanged (Allen et al. 2003). For instance, the
knowledge and insights needed to complete tasks, or the de-
gree to which the job requires interacting with other organiza-
tional members, remains the same whether they work from
home as a telecommuter or from an office. In this way,
telecommuting is Bthe context or environment in which an
individual’s work is carried out, and not an aspect of the work
itself^ (Bélanger et al. 2013: 1262). Consequently, a key pre-
mise underlying our investigation is the distinction between
telecommuting’s altered location or environment for working,
J Bus Psychol
and the unchanged nature of the work itself. In the following
sections, we therefore first examine the implications of the
altered work environment by examining if the extent of
telecommuting impacts job performance. Then, through an
examination of whether telecommuting’s impact on job per-
formance depends on the nature of the telecommuter’s work,
we examine whether work characteristics potentially amplify
telecommuting’s effect while other characteristics constrain or
even attenuate its impact.
The Extent of Telecommuting and Job Performance
Although a review of the telecommuting literature reveals that
the vast majority of research on telecommuting compares tele-
commuters to non-telecommuters (e.g., Crossman and Burton
1993; DuBrin 1991; Fritz et al. 1998; Ramsower 1983; Igbaria
and Guimaraes 1999), recent research has begun to investigate
more realistic and finer-grained distinctions in the form of inves-
tigating how the extent of telecommuting carried out by an indi-
vidual might impact work outcomes (Golden 2006b; Golden and
Veiga 2005; Golden et al. 2006; Golden et al. 2008; Morganson
et al. 2010; Virick et al. 2010). Recognizing that telecommuting
is rarely an Ball or nothing^ phenomenon, this emerging literature
suggests that the extent to which an individual works in an en-
vironment away from the central office, typically from home,
plays a major role in determining any impact that telecommuting
may have. Whereas individuals who spend a small amount of
time per week as a telecommuter are likely to have dramatically
different experiences than those who telecommute the majority
of their time away from the central office, understanding if the
extent of telecommuting carried out by an individual impacts job
performance seems key to unlocking the complexities of this
work mode.
When telecommuting, an individual generally works in a
home environment located away from the central office.
Literature suggests this environment for carrying out work
offers advantages for job performance, and while not univer-
sal, is likely to provide benefits that result in higher job per-
formance among individuals who telecommute more exten-
sively. Scholars theorizing about telecommuting’s effect on
job performance have asserted that the telecommuting envi-
ronment increases employee discretion and the means of com-
pleting work tasks, which allows employees opportunities to
alter their work routines in ways to better fit their productivity
rhythms and work style (Allen et al. 2003; DuBrin 1991;
Fonner and Roloff 2010; Raghuram et al. 2001). Likewise,
some aspects of work, especially those requiring deep thought
and reflection, may be more effectively completed at home
compared to in the office because of fewer interruptions
(Fonner and Roloff 2010; Gajendran and Harrison 2007;
Vega et al. 2015). By enabling a better fit between aspects of
work and the location of work, telecommuting may lead to
better job performance.
Moreover, whereas telecommuting reduces the time, energy,
and stress expended on commuting to and from the central
office, additional time and energy are available for both work
and family pursuits, and reports indicate at least some of the
saved time is likely to be devoted to completing work tasks
(Bailey and Kurland 2002; Guimaraes and Dallow 1999).
Additionally, as supported by research on exchange theory
(Blau 1964), a telecommuter’s felt obligation in return for the
ability to enjoy the many work-family related benefits of
telecommuting may result in telecommuters exerting extra ef-
fort and diligence in carrying out their work (Riley and
McCloskey 1997), so as to reciprocate for the ability to work
in this manner and as a means of preserving this way of work-
ing. Supporting this, a recent nationally representative Gallup
study found telecommuters work a minimum of 4 h more per
week on average than other employees (Gallup 2013). As the
extent of telecommuting increases, individuals are therefore
able to reap increased benefits from telecommuting in terms
of saved time, reduced stress from traffic and other uncertainties
associated with commuting, as well as an enhanced ability to
accomplish their work that stem from discretion in their pro-
ductivity rhythms and work style (Allen et al. 2003; DuBrin
1991; Fonner and Roloff 2010; Raghuram et al. 2001).
In this way, with greater available time, energy, and vigor, as
well as an increased felt obligation to apply themselves toward
work in return for receiving the work-family benefits of
telecommuting, individuals who telecommute more extensively
are prone to have higher job performance than those who tele-
commute a nominal amount. Early meta-analytic evidence com-
paring small numbers of telecommuters to non-telecommuters is
supportive of this positive association with job performance
(Gajendran and Harrison 2007). While the possibility exists that
telecommuting may in some instances constrain face-to-face in-
teractions which hinder some aspects of completing work tasks
(e.g., Daft and Lengel 1986; Short et al. 1976), whether this
potential constraint has a meaningful impact on job performance
is likely to depend on characteristics of the work carried out by
the telecommuter, a point we discuss in-depth in the next section.
Thus, weighing the array of evidence, including the greater avail-
able time, energy, and synergy with individual productivity
rhythms and work styles, as well as the greater felt obligation
to reciprocate for telecommuting’s work-family benefits, evi-
dence suggests that individuals who telecommute more exten-
sively will have higher job performance. Therefore we expect:
Hypothesis 1: The extent of telecommuting will be posi-
tively associated with job performance.
The Contingent Role of Work Characteristics
Although determining if the extent of telecommuting is related
to job performance has far-ranging implications,

understanding if characteristics of the work itself help or hin-
der the telecommuter’s job performance is likely to lead to
insights that may help resolve debate in existing literature.
Toward this end, we draw from the seminal work of
Morgeson and Humphrey (2006) to investigate structural fea-
tures of work that are particularly relevant in the
telecommuting environment. Whereas telecommuting re-
search has continued to assert the pivotal role of separation
from the central office as perhaps the single most distinctive
aspect of telecommuting (Bailey and Kurland 2002; Bartel
et al. 2012; Golden et al. 2008; Guimaraes and Dallow
1999; Hill et al. 2003), we center on the knowledge and
social characteristics of work noted by Morgeson and
Humphrey (2006) since they capture the learning and interac-
tions essential for many jobs that are uniquely altered by the
separation from others inherent within the telecommuting en-
vironment (Bailey and Kurland 2002; Cooper and Kurland
2002; Golden and Raghuram 2010; Humer 2013; Kurland
and Cooper 2002; Swisher 2013). Literature suggests knowl-
edge and social characteristics of work may be especially re-
vealing for telecommuter job performance (Bailey and
Kurland 2002; Cooper and Kurland 2002; Golden and
Raghuram 2010; Guimaraes and Dallow 1999; Humer 2013;
Lynch 2013; Swisher 2013), and are particularly relevant
within the telecommuting environment since they reflect
Bboth the job and the link between jobs and the broader
environment^ (Morgeson and Humphrey 2006: 1322)—an
intrinsic aspect of telecommuting (Allen et al. 2003;
Bélanger et al. 2013). Moreover, as noted recently, Bin con-
temporary research, scholars have paid growing attention to
the social and knowledge characteristics of work^ (Grant
2012: 594). These characteristics, in addition to influencing
a range of outcomes in traditional work environments (Parker
et al. 2001; Morgeson and Humphrey 2006; Humphrey et al.
2007; Grant 2007), present a means to begin more systematic
inquiry into the influential role played by work characteristics
within the telecommuting environment.
In the following sections, we therefore propose how two
knowledge characteristics of work, namely, job complexity
and problem solving, and two social characteristics of work,
specifically interdependence and social support, enable or
constrain telecommuting’s impact on job performance.
These knowledge and social characteristics typify aspects of
work that are likely to be key within the telecommuting con-
text, wherein the ability to concentrate uninterrupted and sep-
arated from the office social environment are important factors
that are altered in this form of working (Bailey and Kurland
2002). As noted by Morgeson and Humphrey (2006), knowl-
edge characteristics Breflect the kinds of knowledge, skill, and
ability demands that are placed on an individual as a function
of what is done on their job^ (p. 1323), and relate to the
development and utilization of information and skills (Grant
2012; Parker et al. 2001), which are key features of work that
J Bus Psychol
likely influence a telecommuter’s ability to work effectively
while away from their central office. Similarly, social charac-
teristics of work acknowledge that Bwork is performed within
a broader social environment^ (Morgeson and Humphrey
2006: 1323), and encapsulate the relational and interpersonal
connectedness of conducting work (Demerouti and Bakker
2014; Grant 2012; Humphrey et al. 2007). These are especial-
ly relevant in the telecommuting environment wherein indi-
viduals are geographically separated from others yet are still
required to coordinate and rely upon others to complete their
work. Together, these characteristics of work provide a
grounded and systematic means to begin unraveling
telecommuting’s enigmatic impact on job performance.
Job Complexity Job complexity refers to the extent to which
job tasks are difficult, multifaceted, and involve the use of
high-level cognitive skills (Morgeson and Humphrey 2006;
Wood 1986). Compared to simple jobs, complex jobs require
higher levels of cognitive processing due to the greater need to
integrate and synthesize informational cues. For jobs high in
complexity individuals generally benefit from long periods of
uninterrupted time to successfully complete their work
(Perlow 1999; Speier et al. 2003; Oldham et al. 1991).
Although the performance of most jobs could suffer when
interrupted, this is likely to be of most concern when jobs
are complex, since recovering from interruptions requires
greater time and effort for complex tasks compared to simple
tasks, due to the greater attention and informational processing
demands (Baron 1986; Payne 1982; Speier et al. 2003).
In this way for telecommuters in jobs with high complexity,
the ability to avoid or minimize interruptions by working
away from the central office is likely to enable them to achieve
higher performance (Block and Stokes 1989). Although tele-
commuters may still encounter electronic interruptions such as
emails or phone calls, they have greater control over when
they respond and how (Wajcman and Rose 2011).
Telecommuting literature often notes how the separation from
the office inherent within telecommuting enables telecom-
muters to avoid interruptions and achieve greater focus in their
work (Bailey and Kurland 2002; Gajendran and Harrison
2007), and research on the effects of interruptions finds that
they are especially harmful for tasks that require a great deal of
information processing (Baron 1986; Davis et al. 2011; Speier
et al. 2003). Therefore for complex tasks that require the syn-
thesis and processing of multiple informational cues, avoiding
interruptions may facilitate the inclusion and full processing
of relevant information that might have otherwise been
overlooked, thereby benefitting performance. Moreover, con-
sidering that interruptions displace primary tasks from an in-
dividual’s working memory (Coraggio 1990; Czerwinski et al.
2004; Gillie and Broadbent 1989), recovering working mem-
ory contents after an interruption is more difficult and time-
consuming and especially detrimental for complex work
J Bus Psychol
(Gillie and Broadbent 1989; Laird et al. 1983). Bearing in
mind that Bunplanned physical encounters that interrupt a per-
son’s work^ (Jett and George 2003: 494) are prominent in
traditional office layouts and consume an average of 10 min
in each working hour (O’Conaill and Frohlich 1995), avoiding
these interruptions by telecommuting extensively when in
jobs with high complexity may not only save time but also
decrease the cognitive load that is beneficial to job
performance.
Individuals who telecommute more extensively and who
work in highly complex Bmentally demanding^ jobs
(Morgeson and Humphrey 2006: 1323) are therefore able to
harness the benefits of avoiding interruptions inherent within
telecommuting, thereby increasing job performance.
Compared to telecommuters in jobs with low complexity,
those in jobs with high complexity can better harness the time
and ability to integrate and synthesize complex information
during more prolonged periods of work, and thus achieve
higher job performance. Therefore, we expect:
Hypothesis 2: Job complexity moderates the relationship
between the extent of telecommuting and job perfor-
mance, such that the higher the job complexity, the more
positive the impact of the extent of telecommuting on job
performance.
Problem Solving Problem solving refers to the extent to which
a job requires developing unique ideas or solutions on an
ongoing basis (Morgeson and Humphrey 2006). Jobs with
high levels of problem solving involve the generation of in-
novative solutions to non-routine issues and challenges. The
ability to engage in abstract thinking and deep concentration
are key aspects of solving problems (Amabile 1988, 1996;
Shalley et al. 2009; Madjar et al. 2002) because they enhance
the identification and understanding of key dimensions of the
problem area and enable the Bgeneration of approaches that
are feasible and appropriate, but also unique^ (Perry-Smith
and Shalley 2003: 91). Conversely, for jobs requiring low
levels of problem solving, abstract conceptualization, and
concentration are less beneficial and the failure to fully pro-
cess an array of informational cues may not be as detrimental
to task completion (Amabile 1988; Leroy 2009; Payne 1982).
Compared to telecommuters in jobs requiring low levels of
problem solving, those in jobs requiring higher levels of prob-
lem solving are apt to derive greater benefit from the physical
and psychological separation from others inherent in
telecommuting, since this separation can provide a greater
opportunity to fully contemplate, understand, and assess es-
sential aspects of problems and decide upon optimal solutions
(Fonner and Roloff 2010; Guimaraes and Dallow 1999;
Shalley et al. 2009). Whereas telecommuters are separated
from colleagues in the office, they are more insulated from
the immediacy of pressing requests from others who may stop
by their office (Golden et al. 2008), where politeness norms
may dictate immediate responses (De Croon et al. 2005;
Fonner and Roloff 2010). As such, their ability to psycholog-
ically distance themselves from issues that are peripheral to
their job may be enhanced (Bailey and Kurland 2002; Speier
et al. 1999). Solving problems often requires attentional focus
to fully grasp important distinctions and nuances that are em-
bedded within details of information (Amabile and Mueller
2008; Leroy 2009; Morgeson and Humphrey 2006), so the
physical and psychological distance inherent within
telecommuting is apt to be beneficial for abstract conceptual-
izing and completion. While it is possible that isolation from
the office might hinder feedback or inputs from others partic-
ularly on collective projects (Harrison and Klein 2007), our
focus here is on individual problem solving contexts where
intense team-based efforts are less prevalent. Individuals who
telecommute more extensively and are in jobs requiring high
levels of problem solving are therefore generally apt to expe-
rience greater concentration and ability to conceptualize that
enhances their ability to perform their job.
With more extensive telecommuting, individuals in jobs re-
quiring high levels of problem solving will therefore likely find it
easier to fully contemplate the array of informational cues and
nuances that are Bimportant psychological foundations for ab-
stract understanding^ (Zhong and House 2012: 3), and their
job performance is apt to increase. Compared to telecommuters
in jobs with low problem solving requirements, more extensive
telecommuters who are in jobs requiring high levels of problem
solving are more likely to be able to harness the enhanced ability
to engage in abstract thinking and integrate information that will
benefit their job performance. Therefore, we hypothesize:
Hypothesis 3: Problem solving moderates the relation-
ship between the extent of telecommuting and job perfor-
mance, such that the higher the problem solving, the
more positive the impact of the extent of telecommuting
on job performance.
Interdependence Work interdependence refers to the extent to
which workgroup members rely on one another to effectively
complete their work (Kiggundu 1981; Morgeson and
Humphrey 2006). Individuals in jobs with high levels of in-
terdependence must continually adjust and modify their tasks
based on inputs from others, requiring real-time information
exchange and close coordination (Thompson 1967; Kiggundu
1981). Jobs with high levels of interdependence require
interacting and communicating frequently with others in order
to initiate and receive information needed to complete tasks
(Morgeson and Humphrey 2006), whereas jobs with low in-
terdependence are able to be carried out more autonomously
from others.

For telecommuters with high interdependence, the frequent
information exchange and close coordination required of their
work may be problematic for carrying out their jobs within the
telecommuting environment (Duxbury and Neufeld 1999;
Golden and Veiga 2005). Compared to those with low inter-
dependence, telecommuters with high interdependence are re-
quired to communicate more frequently, and the more exten-
sively they telecommute, the more they must rely upon elec-
tronic communication such as email to replace face-to-face
interactions with colleagues. Since electronic communication
such as email carries fewer contextual cues and is generally
less rich and interactive than face-to-face communication
(Burgoon et al. 2002; Daft and Lengel 1986), telecommuters
in jobs requiring a high degree of interdependence are apt to
suffer in their ability to quickly coordinate and resolve issues
before proceeding with their work, and as a result their job
performance may be impaired. Moreover, the frequent com-
munication required of jobs that are highly interdependent is
more cumbersome with extensive telecommuting, since infor-
mal and happenstance hallway conversations that often serve
to provide important details related to successfully carrying
out tasks are largely absent in this telecommuting environment
(Bailey and Kurland 2002; Guimaraes and Dallow 1999). The
close coordination and frequent exchange of information re-
quired for work that is highly interdependent is therefore like-
ly to be more difficult and lack important nuances about the
tasks, and as a result individuals with high interdependence
who telecommute extensively are prone to suffer in their abil-
ity to easily carry out their jobs.
Therefore, we expect that individuals in jobs with high
interdependence who telecommute more extensively are apt
to have greater difficulty quickly and easily completing their
work, and their job performance is likely to suffer. Conversely,
telecommuters in jobs requiring low interdependence are less
likely to experience these challenges, since they are able to
work more independently and are less reliant upon coordina-
tion with others to complete their work. Thus, individuals who
telecommute extensively and are in jobs with high interdepen-
dence with others are likely to have lower job performance
than telecommuters who have lower interdependence.
Therefore, we propose:
Hypothesis 4: Interdependence moderates the relation-
ship between the extent of telecommuting and job perfor-
mance, such that the lower the interdependence, the more
positive the impact of the extent of telecommuting on job
performance.
Social Support Workplace social support refers to the extent to
which a job provides opportunities for obtaining advice and
assistance from supervisors and coworkers (Morgeson and
Humphrey 2006). Jobs that provide high levels of social
J Bus Psychol
support offer numerous opportunities for the provision of in-
formation and resources from supervisors and coworkers,
which can aid task completion and reduce employee stress
and uncertainty. These personal and friendly interactions at
work help employees to Bclarify their roles and address con-
cerns when they experience incompatible expectations^ and
provide them opportunities to Blearn how to perform their job
more effectively^ (Humphrey et al. 2007: 1337). Social sup-
port may be provided not only via face-to-face interactions,
but also via information and communication technologies in-
cluding phone and video calls, and instant messenger
applications.
While all workers may benefit from high social support
regardless of if they are in the office or telecommuting,
existing evidence indicates individuals who telecommute
more extensively and have high levels of social support may
be better able to perform their jobs in comparison to those with
low social support. This is because extensive telecommuters
with high social support may be better able to compensate for
the loss of environmental cues and other passive observational
opportunities present in the office, providing them critical and
timely information enabling them to perform (Antonakis and
Atwater 2002; Kirkman et al. 2002). In these situations where
telecommuting is more extensive, individuals may especially
benefit from expressions of concern by others and the person-
al, friendly relationships that characterize jobs with high social
support (Morgeson and Humphrey 2006). Such levels of sup-
port are likely to provide much-needed advice and assistance
and help off-set being relatively isolated from the ability to
directly observe events in the office (Cooper and Kurland
2002; Lautsch and Kossek 2011). By remaining more attuned
to the ambient cues and contextual nuances that are part of the
milieu of the office, more extensive telecommuters with high
social support are better able to interpret and carry out impor-
tant aspects of their job than are those with low support
(Golden 2006b, Golden and Raghuram 2010; Golden and
Veiga 2008; Kossek et al. 2006; Wiesenfeld et al. 2001). In
contrast, for more extensive telecommuters with low social
support, not only do they lack observational opportunities
and ambient cues in the office, but they are also cut off as well
from support that might otherwise provide crucial assistance,
thus impeding their ability to acquire relevant information
needed to excel in their job.
In this way, individuals who telecommute more extensively
and have higher levels of social support are better able to
perform their jobs than are those with low social support.
For individuals who telecommute less extensively however,
although more social support is likely to be beneficial for
boosting performance, the benefit is apt to be of less relative
value in comparison to those who telecommute more exten-
sively. This is because less extensive telecommuters spend
more of their work week in the office, where their on-site
presence enables them to passively observe and acquire
J Bus Psychol
needed information that is not similarly available when they
telecommute more extensively. Thus, unlike situations in
which social support is low wherein colleagues provide little
or no assistance, highly supportive environments may there-
fore be helpful for boosting performance, especially among
more extensive telecommuters.
Hypothesis 5: Social support moderates the relationship
between the extent of telecommuting and job perfor-
mance, such that the higher the social support, the more
positive the impact of the extent of telecommuting on job
performance.
Method
Sample and Procedure
Data was collected in a single organization in order to control
for possible confounds due to organizational differences in
telecommuting policies and practices. A senior manager sent
an email to a random sample of non-supervisory level em-
ployees participating in the firm’s voluntary telecommuting
program requesting their participation in the study. The email
provided details about the study and included information
assuring employees that their participation was voluntary
and that results would only be reported in an aggregate form
to ensure confidentiality of individual responses. Employees
participated in the study by completing a web-based survey in
which responses from employees and their supervisors were
matched using ID numbers. From 1018 employees initially
contacted, completed matched responses were received from
273 telecommuters and their supervisors (27% response rate).
Telecommuters held a variety of positions, including those in
marketing (13%), programming (24%), accounting (10%), en-
gineering (23%), finance (6%), sales (15%), and other (9%).
On average, respondents telecommuted 36% of their work-
week or nearly 2 days per week, which is consistent with
trends for this work mode (Jones 2015), and telecommuting
ranged from approximately 10–90%. Telecommuters were on
average 71 % male, averaged 32 years old, and had average
tenure in their job of over 46 months. Managers were on
average 62 % male and averaged 41 years old.
Measures
Job Performance The four-item measure of supervisor-
provided performance ratings originally developed by
Wayne and Liden (1995) was utilized in this study. An exam-
ple item is BOverall, to what extent do you feel your subordi-
nate has been effectively fulfilling his or her roles and
responsibilities?^ (1 = not effectively, 5 = very effectively)
(alpha = .91).
Extent of Telecommuting We measured the extent of
telecommuting using a measure developed by Golden and
Veiga (2005). Respondents were asked to indicate the percent-
age of time they spent telecommuting in an average week. As
used in a number of studies (e.g. Golden et al. 2006; Golden
et al. 2008), this method captures the extent of telecommuting
practiced by individuals.
Job Complexity We used the 4-item measure of job complex-
ity developed by Morgeson and Humphrey (2006) in the
widely used Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ). This mea-
sure asks respondents to assesses the complexity level of their
job using a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly
agree). An example item is Bthe tasks on the job are simple
and uncomplicated^ (reverse scored). Responses were aver-
aged (alpha = 84).
Problem Solving The problem solving skills needed in the
telecommuter’s job was assessed using the 4-item measure
developed by Morgeson and Humphrey (2006). This measure
asks respondents to assess if their job requires solving prob-
lems that have no obvious correct answer. An example item is
Bthe job often involves dealing with problems that I have not
met before^. Items were averaged to form the overall measure
(alpha = .88).
Interdependence The degree of interdependence of the tele-
commuter’s job with others was assessed using the measure of
initiated interdependence from the widely used Work Design
Questionnaire (Morgeson and Humphrey 2006). This 3-item
measure assesses the extent to which the job is linked to
others, and an example item is Bthe job depends on the work
of many different people for its completion^ (alpha = .86).
Social Support We used five items from the measure of social
support developed by Morgeson and Humphrey (2006) to
assess the telecommuter’s social support in their job. This
measure assesses the degree to which individuals feel that
others are supportive and concerned about their welfare. An
example item is Bpeople I work with take a personal interest in
me^. Following procedures, the items were averaged to form
an overall measure (alpha = .80).
Control Variables Prior research indicates that gender (1 =
male, 2 = female) (Bailey and Kurland 2002; Guadagno and
Cialdini 2007) and tenure (Golden et al. 2008; Wright and
Bonnet 2002) may be related to job performance. Men may
telecommute more extensively than women and receive
higher performance ratings (Arvey and Murphy 1998), and
longer tenured employees may be more trusted and less
 J Bus Psychol

penalized for telecommuting (Kaplan et al. 2017). These var-
iables were therefore controlled in order to be conservative
and minimize unintended effects.
Results
The means, standard deviations, and correlations of the study
variables are presented in Table 1. Hierarchical regression
analysis was used for testing our predictions. Analyses were
run with and without control variables, and results did not
differ substantively. Results reported here include control var-
iables. Although our measures had been previously validated,
before testing our hypotheses we sought to ensure their dis-
criminant validity by conducting a CFA on the multi-item
measures of job complexity, problem solving, interdepen-
dence, and social support. The fit of the proposed four-factor
model was empirically tested to examine whether it fit the data
better than did competing models (Kelloway 1998). As antic-
ipated the four-factor model indicated an adequate fit with the
data, χ2 (98, N = 273) = 160, p < .001, CFI = .97, IFI = .97,
NFI = .93, RMSEA = .05. In contrast, other conceivable
models with fewer factors did not exhibit adequate fit statis-
tics. For instance, a one-factor model exhibited a poor fit, χ2
(104, N = 273) = 1480, p < .001, CFI = .30, IFI = .31,
NFI = .29, RMSEA = .22. A two-factor model with interde-
pendence and social support in one factor and problem solving
and job complexity in the other factor exhibited a similarly
poor fit χ 2 (103, N = 273) = 978, p < .001, CFI = .55,
IFI = .56, NFI = .53, RMSEA = .18. A three-factor model with
interdependence and social support in one factor and problem
solving and job complexity as separate factors exhibited a
similarly poor fit χ 2 (101, N = 273) = 545, p < .001,
CFI = .77, IFI = .78, NFI = .74, RMSEA = .13. These analyses
provided further support that the measures are empirically
distinguishable.
Hypothesis 1 predicted that the extent of telecommuting
would be positively related to job performance. As shown in
Table 2, hierarchical regression analysis revealed that extent
of telecommuting was positively associated with job perfor-
mance, and the increase in model fit was significant after
accounting for the control variables (β = .20, p < .01;
ΔR2 = .04, p < .01). This hypothesis was therefore supported.
To assess the moderating hypotheses, variables were cen-
tered prior to constructing the interaction terms (Cohen et al.
2003). The moderators were entered into the regression equa-
tions simultaneously to be more conservative (Kohler and
Mathieu 1993) and the procedures of Baron and Kenny
(1986) were followed. Hypotheses 2 predicted that job com-
plexity would moderate the relationship between the extent of
telecommuting and job performance, and this hypothesis re-
ceived support (β = .18, p < .01; ΔR2 = .09, p < .001). In order
to interpret the interaction effect, we plotted high and low
levels of job complexity (± 1 s.d. from the mean) following
the procedures of Cohen et al. (2003). As shown in Fig. 1,
telecommuters in jobs with high job complexity who
telecommuted to a greater extent had higher job performance
than telecommuters working in jobs which with less complex-
ity, and their job performance increased with higher levels of
telecommuting. For individuals in less complex jobs, the ex-
tent of telecommuting had little effect on job performance.
Simple slope tests of the regression lines at high and low
levels of job complexity offered further support, with the slope
significant at high levels of job complexity (.012, p < .001) but
not at low levels of complexity (.003, n.s.).
Hypothesis 3 predicted that problem solving would mod-
erate the relationship between the extent of telecommuting
and job performance. As shown in Table 2, this hypothesis
was not supported (β = .01, n.s.; ΔR2 = .09, p < .001). Jobs
requiring high problem solving ability did not influence the
extent of telecommuting–job performance relationship.
Hypothesis 4, which predicted that interdependence would
moderate the relationship between the extent of telecommuting
and job performance, revealed a significant interaction in support
of our prediction (β = − .20, p < .01; ΔR2 = .09, p < .001). As
shown in Fig. 2, those with higher levels of telecommuting

Table 1 Descriptive statistics and

correlations among variables Variables s.d. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Mean

1. Gender 1.29 .45

2. Tenure 46.92 28.20 − .01
3. Extent of 36.50 19.70 .05 .03
telecommuting
4. Job performance 3.74 .69 .04 − .11 .20**
5. Job complexity 3.45 .81 .00 − .01 − .20** − .03
6. Problem solving 3.08 .76 − .03 .11 .05 − .01 .05
7. Interdependence 3.57 .91 − .07 − .04 − .29** − .13* .05 − .05
8. Social support 3.27 .73 .04 − .18** − .13* .04 − .01 − .20** .10

*p < .05, **p < .01

J Bus Psychol

Table 2 Hierarchical regression

analysis for job performance Job performance

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Step 1: control variables

Gender .04 .03 .02 .03
Tenure − .11 − .11 − .11 − .09
Step 2:
Extent of telecommuting .20** .18** .17**
Step 3:
Job complexity .01 − .01
Problem solving .00 − .00
Interdependence − .09 − .05
Social support .06 .07
Step 4:
Job complexity x Ext of telecommuting .18**
Problem solving x Ext of telecommuting .01
Interdependence x Ext of telecommuting − .20**
Social Support x Ext of telecommuting − .17**
Change in R2 .01 .04** .01 .09***
R2 .01 .05 .06 .16
Adjusted R2 .01 .04 .03 .11
F 1.42 4.03** 2.01 3.49***

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

who worked in jobs involving little interdependence had higher
job performance than those working in jobs which were highly
interdependent, and their job performance increased with more
extensive telecommuting. Similarly, the job performance of tele-
commuters in jobs which were highly interdependent with others
was largely unaffected by more extensive telecommuting.
Simple slope tests of the regression lines at high and low levels
of interdependence offered further support, with the slope
significant at low levels of interdependence (.012, p < .001) but
not at high interdependence (− .002, n.s.).
Hypothesis 5, which predicted that social support would mod-
erate the relationship between the extent of telecommuting and
job performance, revealed a significant interaction (β = − .18,
p < .01; ΔR2 = .09, p < .001), although as shown in Fig. 3 the
effect was different than anticipated. The extent of
telecommuting appears to have little effect on job performance

Fig. 1 The moderating effect of

job complexity on the relationship
between telecommuting and job High Complexity
performance
Job Performance

Low Complexity

Extent of Telecommuting
 J Bus Psychol

Fig. 2 The moderating effect of

interdependence on the
Low Interdependence
relationship between
telecommuting and job
performance

Job Performance
High Interdependence

Extent of Telecommuting

when social support is high, yet telecommuting has a positive
impact on job performance when social support is low. Simple
slope tests of the regression lines at high and low levels of social
support offered further evidence, with the slope significant at low
levels of social support (.015, p < .001) but not at high levels of
support (− .001, n.s.). As expanded upon more in the discussion
section, the extent of telecommuting does not appear to hurt job
performance for individuals with high social support, yet it ap-
pears beneficial for individuals with little social support.
Discussion
Although the job performance of telecommuters has been a
central question in high-profile scholarly and practitioner
debate, few have provided rigorous empirical evidence to sup-
port their claims nor investigated important distinctions that
might influence telecommuting’s impact on job performance.
In this study, we therefore seek to resolve on-going debate by
investigating not only if the telecommuting environment has
implications for job performance, but also if the nature of the
work itself plays an influential role. Using matched survey
data from telecommuters and their supervisors, results support
a positive relationship between the extent of telecommuting
and job performance, indicating that the more extensively an
individual telecommutes, the more positive his or her perfor-
mance. However, lending support to our contention that
telecommuting’s relationship with job performance is more
complex than has been previously understood, findings from
this study also suggest that the job performance of

Fig. 3 The moderating effect of

social support on the relationship
between telecommuting and job
performance Low Social Support
Job Performance

High Social Support

Extent of Telecommuting
J Bus Psychol
telecommuters needs to be understood not only in terms of the
extent of telecommuting carried out by the individual, but also
in terms of characteristics of the telecommuter’s work (e.g.,
Morgeson and Humphrey 2006). As expected, three of our
hypothesized moderators, namely job complexity, interdepen-
dence, and social support, had significant and distinct moder-
ating effects. Yet, not all were in the direction anticipated. As
discussed in more detail below, one noteworthy finding that is
common across the pattern of interactions is the lack of a
negative effect of the extent of telecommuting on job perfor-
mance through the range of each moderator examined (± 1
standard deviation from the mean). Thus, allaying apprehen-
sions about possible downsides for job performance (e.g.,
Guynn 2013; Humer 2013; Lynch 2013; Swisher 2013), our
findings suggest that the extent of telecommuting does not
adversely affect job performance across the array of work
characteristics examined.
More specifically, as suggested by work design theory
(e.g., Morgeson and Humphrey 2006), aspects of the telecom-
muter’s work, rather than solely the telecommuting environ-
ment per se, appear to play an important influential role in
determining what impact telecommuting might have on job
performance. As illustrated by our examination of job com-
plexity shown in Fig. 1, telecommuters in jobs with high job
complexity who telecommuted more extensively than others
had higher job performance than telecommuters working in
jobs which were less complex, and their performance in-
creased with higher levels of telecommuting. Consistent with
assertions that telecommuting enables individuals to avoid
unplanned interruptions and thus save time and decrease cog-
nitive load (Bailey and Kurland 2002; Gajendran and Harrison
2007; Gillie and Broadbent 1989), telecommuting appears
beneficial for highly complex jobs.
Similarly, as shown in Fig. 2, telecommuters in jobs with
little interdependence with others who telecommuted more
extensively than others had higher performance than those
working in jobs which were highly interdependent, and their
job performance also increased at higher levels of
telecommuting. Counter to expectations, however, for tele-
commuters in jobs that were highly interdependent with
others, job performance did not suffer with more extensive
telecommuting and the effect was essentially neutral.
Although we expected that job performance for these telecom-
muters might suffer owing to the greater difficulty communi-
cating effectively with others via electronic media that contain
fewer cues and decreased feedback (Burgoon et al. 2002; Daft
and Lengel 1986), our data did not support this. One possible
explanation is that telecommuters in our study were able to
adapt to the communication and coordination demands of
highly interdependent work by harvesting the efficiencies of
some modes of electronic communication, such as email or
texting, in order to avoid miscommunications and streamline
interactions. This may have benefitted their job performance
enough to avoid any decrements. Further, most telecommuters
in our study worked away from the office only part of the
week, which means that they may have been able to adjust
their interdependent tasks to periods when they were in the
office. As a result, a higher level of interdependence may not
have adversely affected their job performance. Additional re-
search is likely to provide more definitive insights.
Additionally, our results also suggest that telecommuting im-
proves job performance when social support is low rather than
high. Although as predicted social support was a significant mod-
erator of the telecommuting–job performance relationship, the
nature of the interaction was contrary to what was anticipated.
As shown in Fig. 3, the extent of telecommuting appears to have
little effect on job performance when social support is high, yet
telecommuting has a positive impact on job performance when
social support is low. These results indicate that it is not so much
that high levels of social support matter in terms of job perfor-
mance, but it is the absence of social support that is key. This
pattern also suggests that employees who experience
unsupportive relationships at work could benefit from spatial
distance afforded by telecommuting. Perhaps, being collocated
and having to work face-to-face with colleagues who are unable
or unwilling to offer assistance or who are actively undermining
employee efforts could be detrimental to job performance (Duffy
et al. 2002). In this way, it could be that working remotely buffers
employees from the downsides of jobs that provide few occa-
sions for social support, which thus provides instrumental and
motivational benefits that boost performance (Kammeyer-
Mueller et al. 2012).
Contrary to expectations, our findings did not support the
moderating role of problem solving. One possibility is that
considering the conservative nature of our test in which all
moderators were entered as a block, the other moderators
may have played a more dominant role. We checked for this
possibility by entering the interaction term separately in a
regression equation with the main effect, and it was not sig-
nificant. Perhaps, effective problem-solving relies less on
where employees work and more on their intrinsic motivation,
expertise, and creative ability (Amabile 1988, 1996). It may
also be that telecommuters in jobs with higher levels of prob-
lem solving are able to flexibly adapt to the need to solve
problems by relying on email, phone, or other communication
media to seek inputs on their tasks (Carlson and Zmud 1999;
Antonakis and Atwater 2002), and this could protect against
decrements in job performance as problem solving demands
increase. While such possibilities are difficult to discern with-
out additional research, in light of recent managerial concerns
that telecommuting could compromise employee effective-
ness by hampering employee innovation (e.g., Guynn 2013;
Swisher 2013), the lack of a significant interaction effect is
noteworthy because it suggests that telecommuters in jobs
with high problem solving demands are just as effective as
those in jobs requiring lower problem solving.

Considering the fundamental importance of job performance
for organizational survival, future research should continue to not
only identify and study more about how telecommuting and
work characteristics might impact individual performance, but
also how these might impact performance for other members
of the work unit as well. For the individual telecommuter, while
in this study we have investigated theoretically derived work
parameters relevant to telecommuting using previously validated
measures, much more remains to be done. For example, future
researchers might examine additional aspects of work derived
from work design theory (e.g., Morgeson and Humphrey 2006)
to investigate if they play an influential role, or if components of
tasks themselves might be redesigned in order for telecommuters
to further boost their productivity. In regards to how
telecommuting might impact the performance of other members
of the work unit, future researchers might consider a broader
array of assessments that investigate coworkers of telecommuters
and their experiences interacting with the telecommuter (e.g.,
Golden 2007). Given recent debate regarding telecommuting’s
potential impact on collaboration (Humer 2013; Swisher 2013),
particularly in light of the importance of collaborative work for
jobs that are high on interdependence, understanding the impli-
cations of telecommuting from the perspective of colleagues in
the office may shed additional important insights.
From a broader perspective, results from this study call atten-
tion to the need for more nuanced understanding of the contin-
gencies that determine when telecommuting and other virtual
work arrangements are likely to have an effect on key employee
outcomes. Although this study provides a crucial first step using
theoretically grounded work characteristics, future research ex-
ploring other moderating variables such as individual differences,
relational quality with colleagues, and structural components of
the organization’s work process, could reveal additional impor-
tant influencing factors (Wiesenfeld et al. 2001). While setting up
such studies are challenging given the difficulty of obtaining such
comprehensive data, the implications are apt to be significant
given the growing popularity of these types of virtual work
modes.
Limitations
Despite multi-source data, which alleviates concerns about com-
mon method bias, this study’s correlational design means that we
cannot infer causality from our findings. That is, we cannot claim
that telecommuting improves job performance, only that more
extensive telecommuting is associated with higher levels of job
performance. Another key implication is that we cannot rule out
the possibility of reverse causation as an explanation for the
extent of telecommuting’s association with job performance.
That is, it is possible that only those who exhibit high levels of
job performance were allowed to telecommute more extensively
than others (Allen et al. 2015). Our sample lessens this concern
because telecommuting was offered as a family-friendly work
J Bus Psychol
arrangement available to all employees regardless of perfor-
mance level. Still, the possibility that managerial discretion plays
a role in deciding who will be allowed to telecommute remains a
concern. Highlighting this possibility, recent research by Kaplan
et al. (2017) found that managers are willing to allow more
extensive telecommuting to employees who they perceive as
conscientious and trustworthy. Future research should therefore
employ longitudinal designs to provide stronger causal evidence
regarding telecommuting’s relationship with job performance.
Additionally, given that participants in this study were all
professional-level employees from a single large organization,
it is possible that these individuals may not be representative of
other companies and industries and this could limit the general-
izability of our findings. Considering however that the preva-
lence of telecommuting tends to be higher among professional-
level employees in knowledge-based industries (WorldatWork
2011), our findings are directly relevant to a substantial segment
of individuals using this work arrangement. Finally, although
mirroring telecommuting implementation in practice (Jones
2015) and consistent with earlier research (Allen et al. 2015),
our sample did not contain a large proportion of telecommuters
who telecommuted at the most extreme levels—nearly all of the
time. This could mean that potential curvilinear effects of the
extent of telecommuting (e.g., Golden 2006b; Virick et al.
2010) on job performance are not detected in our sample, or that
potentially harmful effects of the highest levels of telecommuting
on performance are less likely to be apparent. Echoing this, re-
search on virtual teams suggests using electronic communication
over 90% of the time represents a tipping point that leads to
detrimental social outcomes (Johnson et al. 2009), a possible
scenario for those who telecommute extensively. Future research
to discern such possibilities therefore seems worthwhile.
Managerial Implications
A central concern that mangers often express about
telecommuting is that it might potentially hurt job perfor-
mance (Bailey and Kurland 2002; Swisher 2013). Findings
from this study suggest that there are significant performance
upsides for many employees with little downsides for the re-
mainder—at worst, the extent of telecommuting neither helps
nor harms performance. This study also provides guidance for
managers regarding the types of jobs where telecommuting
can be most beneficial. For employees holding complex jobs,
for those in jobs involving low levels of interdependence, and
for those jobs with low levels of social support, the more
extensively individuals telecommute the higher their job per-
formance. These findings provide managers with concrete
criteria by which to evaluate which jobs are more likely to
result in performance improvements. Especially for em-
ployees with unsupportive colleagues that provide little social
support, telecommuting may offer managers a key tool to
enable higher performance. Importantly, counter to
J Bus Psychol
conventional wisdom, our study’s findings also suggest that
managers need not be concerned about the performance of
telecommuters in jobs requiring high interdependence or
whose jobs provide high levels of social support at work—
their performance is likely to remain essentially unchanged
regardless of the extent of telecommuting.
More broadly, our findings offer managers a new lens to view
telecommuting arrangements. A common view of
telecommuting is that it is primarily a work-family benefit that
offers personal benefits to telecommuters but imposes costs to the
organization in the form of lower performance, reduced manage-
rial control, and increased coworker burdens (Gajendran et al.
2015; Golden 2007; Golden and Fromen 2011). When managers
view telecommuting in this way, they are likely to make negative
attributions about telecommuters and their level of commitment
and dedication to their jobs (Gajendran et al. 2015; Leslie et al.
2012). In contrast, this study proposes an alternate view of
telecommuting as a work design initiative that can boost perfor-
mance for those in jobs with specific characteristics—high job
complexity, low interdependence, or low social support.
Importantly, when job complexity is low, or when interdepen-
dence or social support are high, telecommuter performance does
not suffer as the extent of telecommuting increases. Through a
greater recognition of these effects on job performance, managers
can make more informed decisions regarding telecommuting
arrangements that encompass not just the work-family benefits
for telecommuters, but the performance-based implications as
well.
Conclusion
Considering the continued rise in popularity of telecommuting
occurring world-wide, we clearly need to understand more
about any potential impacts on job performance. Results from
this study suggest that while telecommuting may have a pos-
itive effect on job performance, aspects of the work itself play
an influential role. The analysis provided here indicates that
telecommuting provides a positive or neutral impact on job
performance even for extensive telecommuters across a vari-
ety of job design dimensions. In light of these results and
given the other reported benefits of telecommuting such as
work-family enrichment and enhanced job satisfaction, addi-
tional research is needed to fully understand telecommuting’s
complexities so as to better harness its advantages.
References
Allen, D., Renn, R., & Griffeth, R. (2003). The impact of telecommuting
design on social systems, self-regulation, and role boundaries.
Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 22,
125–163.
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(2), 40–68.
Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organi-
zations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 123–167.
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to Bthe social psy-
chology of creativity.^. Boulder: Westview Press.
Amabile, T., & Mueller, J. (2008). Studying creativity, its processes and
its antecedents. In J. Zhou & C. E. Shalley (Eds.), Handbook of
organizational creativity (pp. 33–64). Mahwah: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Antonakis, J., & Atwater, L. (2002). Leader distance: a review and a
proposed theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(6), 673–704.
Arvey, R. D., & Murphy, K. R. (1998). Performance evaluation in work
settings. Annual Review of Psychology, 49(1), 141–168.
Bailey, D., & Kurland, N. (2002). A review of telework research: find-
ings, new directions, and lessons for the study of modern work.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 383–400. https://doi.org/
10.1002/job.144
Baron, R. S. (1986). Distraction-conflict theory: progress and problems.
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19(1986), 1–39.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable
distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic,
and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.
Bartel, C. A., Wrzesniewski, A., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (2012). Knowing
where you stand: physical isolation, perceived respect, and organi-
zational identification among virtual employees. Organization
Science, 23(3), 743–757.
Bélanger, F., Watson-Manheim, M. B., & Swan, B. R. (2013). A multi-
level socio-technical systems telecommuting framework. Behaviour
& Information Technology, 32(12), 1257–1279.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. Transaction
Publishers.
Block, L. K., & Stokes, G. S. (1989). Performance and satisfaction in
private versus nonprofit work settings. Environment and Behavior,
21, 277–297.
Bloom, N. (2014). To raise productivity, let more employees work from
home. Harvard Business Review, January–February.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (2016). Twenty-four percent of employed peo-
ple did some or all of their work at home in 2015. U.S. Department
of Labor, The Economics Daily, July 8.
Burgoon, J. K., Bonito, J. A., Ramirez, A., Dunbar, N. E., Kam, K., &
Fischer, J. (2002). Testing the interactivity principle: effects of me-
diation, propinquity, and verbal and nonverbal modalities in inter-
personal interaction. Journal of Communication, 52(3), 657–677.
Carlson, J. R., & Zmud, R. W. (1999). Channel expansion theory and the
experiential nature of media richness perceptions. Academy of
Management Journal, 42(2), 153–170.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S., & Aiken, L. (2003). Applied multiple
regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd
ed.). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Cooper, C. D., & Kurland, N. B. (2002). Telecommuting, professional
isolation, and employee development in public and private organi-
zations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(4), 511–532.
Coraggio, L. (1990). Deleterious effects of intermittent interruptions on
the task performance of knowledge workers: A laboratory investi-
gation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona.
Crossman, G., & Burton, P. F. (1993). Telework stereotypes: a case study.
Journal of Information Science, 19, 349–362.
Czerwinski, M., Horvitz, E., & Wilhite, S. (2004). A diary study of task
switching and interruptions. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI confer-
ence on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 175–182). ACM.
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information require-
ments, media richness and structural design. Management Science,
32(5), 554–571.

Davis, M. C., Leach, D. J., & Clegg, C. W. (2011). The physical envi-
ronment of the office: Contemporary and emerging issues.
International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
26(1), 193–237.
De Croon, E., Sluiter, J., Kuijer, P. P., & Frings-Dresen, M. (2005). The
effect of office concepts on worker health and performance: a sys-
tematic review of the literature. Ergonomics, 48(2), 119–134.
Demerouti, E., & Bakker, A. B. (2014). Job crafting. An introduction to
contemporary work psychology, 414–433.
DuBrin, A. J. (1991). Comparison of the job satisfaction and productivity
of telecommuters versus in-house employees: a research note on
work in progress. Psychological Reports, 68, 1223–1234.
Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining in
the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 45(2), 331–351.
Duxbury, L., & Neufeld, D. (1999). An empirical evaluation of the im-
pacts of telecommuting on intra-organizational communication.
Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 16(1), 1–28.
Fonner, K. L., & Roloff, M. E. (2010). Why teleworkers are more satis-
fied with their jobs than are office-based workers: when less contact
is beneficial. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 38(4),
336–361.
Fritz, M. B. W., Narasimhan, S., & Rhee, H. S. (1998). Communication
and coordination in the virtual office. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 14, 7–28.
Gajendran, R. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2007). The good, the bad, and the
unknown about telecommuting: meta-analysis of psychological me-
diators and individual consequences. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92(6), 1524–1541. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.
92.6.1524
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(2), 353–393.
Gallup (2013). State of the American workplace: employee engagement
insights for U.S. business leaders. Retrieved from http://www.
gallup.com/strategicconsulting/163007/state-american-workplace.
aspx
Gillie, T., & Broadbent, D. (1989). What makes interruptions disruptive?
A study of length, similarity, and complexity. Psychological
Research, 50(4), 243–250.
GlobalWorkplaceAnalytics.com (2016). Latest telecommuting statistics.
Retrieved from http:/ /globalworkpl aceanalytics.com/
telecommuting-statistics
Golden, T. D. (2006a). 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. (2006b). The role of relationships in understanding tele-
commuter satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(3),
319–340.
Golden, T. D. (2007). Coworkers who telework and the impact on those
in the office: understanding the implications of virtual work for
coworker satisfaction and turnover intentions. Human Relations,
60(11), 1641–1667.
Golden, T. D., & Fromen, A. (2011). Does it matter where your manager
works? Comparing manager work mode (traditional, telework, vir-
tual work) across subordinate work experiences and outcomes.
Human Relations, 64, 1451–1475.
Golden, T. D., & Raghuram, S. (2010). Teleworker knowledge sharing
and the role of altered relational and technological interactions.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(8), 1061–1085. https://doi.
org/10.1002/job.652
Golden, T. D., & Veiga, J. F. (2005). The impact of extent of
telecommuting on job satisfaction: resolving inconsistent findings.
Journal of Management, 31(2), 301–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0149206304271768
J Bus Psychol
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., & Simsek, Z. (2006). Telecommuting’s dif-
ferential impact on work-family conflict: is there no place like
home? Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1340–1350. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1340
Golden, T. D., Veiga, J. F., & Dino, R. N. (2008). The impact of profes-
sional isolation on teleworker job performance and turnover inten-
tions: does time spent teleworking, interacting face-to-face, or hav-
ing access to communication-enhancing technology matter? Journal
of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1412–1421.
Grant, A. (2007). Relational job design and the motivation to make a
prosocial difference. Academy of Management Review, 32, 393–
417.
Grant, A. (2012). Giving time, time after time: work design and sustained
employee participation in corporate volunteering. Academy of
Management Review, 37, 589–615.
Guadagno, R. E., & Cialdini, R. B. (2007). Gender differences in impres-
sion management in organizations: a qualitative review. Sex Roles,
56(7–8), 483–494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9187-3
Guimaraes, T., & Dallow, P. (1999). Empirically testing the benefits,
problems, and success factors for telecommuting programmes.
European Journal of Information Systems, 8(1), 40–54.
Guynn, J. (2013). Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer causes uproar with
telecommuting ban. Los Angeles Times.
Harrison, D. A., & Klein, K. J. (2007). What’s the difference? Diversity
constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations.
Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1199–1228.
Hill, J. E., Ferris, M., & Martinson, 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.
Humer, C. (2013). In Telecommuting debate, Aetna sticks by big at-home
Workforce Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/
01/us-yahoo-telecommuting-aetna-idUSBRE92006820130301
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 lit-
erature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1332–1356.
Igbaria, M., & Guimaraes, T. (1999). Exploring differences in employee
turnover intentions and its determinants among telecommuters and
non-telecommuters. Journal of Management Information Systems,
147–164.
Isidore, C. (2017). IBM tells employees working at home to get back to
the office. CNN Money. May 19.
Jett, Q. R., & George, J. M. (2003). Work interrupted: a closer look at the
role of interruptions in organizational life. Academy of Management
Review, 28(3), 494–507.
Johnson, S. K., Bettenhausen, K., & Gibbons, E. (2009). Realities of
working in virtual teams: affective and attitudinal outcomes of using
computer mediated communication. Small Group Research, 40,
623–649.
Jones, J. (2015). In U.S., telecommuting for work climbs to 37%.
Retrieved September 22, 2017, from http://news.gallup.com/poll/
184649/telecommuting-work-climbs.aspx
Kammeyer-Mueller, J., Wanberg, C., Rubenstein, A., & Song, Z. (2012).
Support, undermining, and newcomer socialization: fitting in during
the first 90 days. Academy of Management Journal.
Kaplan, S., Engelsted, L., Lei, X., & Lockwood, K. (2017). Unpackaging
manager mistrust in allowing telework: comparing and integrating
theoretical perspectives. Journal of Business and Psychology, 1–18.
Kelloway, E. (1998). Using lisrel for structural equation modeling.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Kiggundu, M. N. (1981). Task interdependence and the theory of job
design. Academy of Management Review, 6(3), 499–508.
J Bus Psychol
Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B., Gibson, C. B., Tesluk, P. E., & McPherson, S.
O. (2002). Five challenges to virtual team success: lessons from
sabre, inc. The Academy of Management Executive, 16(3), 67–79.
Kohler, S. S., & Mathieu, J. E. (1993). Individual characteristics, work
perceptions, and affective reactions influences on differentiated ab-
sence criteria. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(6), 515–530.
Kossek, E. E., Lautsch, B. A., & Eaton, S. C. (2006). Telecommuting,
control, and boundary management: correlates of policy use and
practice, job control, and work-family effectiveness. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 68(2), 347–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.
2005.07.002
Kurland, N. B., & Cooper, C. D. (2002). Manager control and employee
isolation in telecommuting environments. Journal of High
Technology Management Research, 13(1), 107–126.
Laird, D. A., Laird, E. C., & Fruehling, R. T. (1983). Psychology and
human relations and work adjustment. New York: McGraw Hill.
Lautsch, B. A., & Kossek, E. E. (2011). Managing a blended workforce:
telecommuters and non-telecommuters. Organizational Dynamics,
40(1), 10–17.
Leroy, S. (2009). Why is it so hard to do my work? The challenge of
attention residue when switching between work tasks.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109(2),
168–181.
Leslie, L. M., Manchester, C. F., Park, T. Y., & Mehng, S. A. (2012).
Flexible work practices: a source of career premiums or penalties?
Academy of Management Journal, 55(6), 1407–1428.
Lynch, S. (2013). Richard Branson to Marissa Mayer: Telecommuting
ban a ‘backwards step’. Silicon Valley Business Journal.
Madjar, N., Oldham, G. R., & Pratt, M. G. (2002). There’s no place like
home? The contributions of work and nonwork creativity support to
employees’ creative performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 45(4), 757–767.
Morganson, V. J., Major, D. A., Oborn, K. L., Verive, J. M., & Heelan, M. P.
(2010). Comparing telework locations and traditional work arrange-
ments: differences in work-life balance support, job satisfaction, and
inclusion. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25(6), 578–595.
Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The work design question-
naire (WDQ): developing and validating a comprehensive measure
for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91(6), 1321–1339. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.
91.6.1321
Nilles, J. M. (1994). Making telecommuting happen: A guide for
telemanagers and telecommuters. New York: Van Nostrand
Reinhold.
O’Conaill, B., & Frohlich, D. (1995). Timespace in the workplace: deal-
ing with interruptions. Paper presented at the CHI proceedings, short
papers. Available from http://www.acm.org/sigchi/chi95/
proceedings/shortppr/boc_bdy.htm.
Oldham, G. R., Kulik, C. T., & Stepina, L. P. (1991). Physical environments
and employee reactions: effects of stimulus-screening skills and job
complexity. Academy of Management Journal, 34(4), 929–938.
Parker, S. K., Wall, T. D., & Cordery, J. L. (2001). Future work design
research and practice: towards an elaborated model of work design.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74(4),
413–440.
Payne, J. W. (1982). Contingent decision behavior. Psychological
Bulletin, 92(2), 382–402.
Perlow, L. A. (1999). The time famine: toward a sociology of work time.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 57–81.
Perry-Smith, J. E., & Shalley, C. E. (2003). The social side of creativity: a
static and dynamic social network perspective. Academy of
Management Review, 28(1), 89–106.
Raghuram, S., Garud, R., Wiesenfeld, B., & Gupta, V. (2001). Factors
contributing to virtual work adjustment. Journal of Management,
27, 383–405.
Ramsower, R. M. (1983). Telecommuting: The organizational and be-
havioral effects of working at home. Ann Arbor: University
Microfilms International.
Reaney, P. (2012). About 20 percent of global workers telecommute: Poll.
Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/24/
workers-telecommute_n_1228004.html
Riley, F., & McCloskey, D. W. (1997). Telecommuting as a response to
helping people balance work and family. In S. Parasuraman & J. H.
Greenhaus (Eds.), Integrating work and family: Challenges and
choices for a changing world (pp. 133–142). Westport: Quorum
Books.
Shalley, C. E., Gilson, L. L., & Blum, T. C. (2009). Interactive effects of
growth need strength, work context, and job complexity on self-
reported creative performance. Academy of Management Journal,
52(3), 489–505.
Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of
telecommunications. London: John Wiley & Sons.
Simons, J. (2017). IBM, a Pioneer of remote work, calls workers back to
the Office. Fox News. Retrieved from http://www.foxbusiness.com/
features/2017/05/18/ibm-pioneer-remote-work-calls-workers-back-
to-office.html
Speier, C., Valacich, J. S., & Vessey, I. (1999). The influence of task
interruption on individual decision making: an information overload
perspective. Decision Sciences, 30(2), 337–360.
Speier, C., Vessey, I., & Valacich, J. S. (2003). The effects of interrup-
tions, task complexity, and information presentation on computer-
supported decision-making performance. Decision Sciences, 34(4),
771–797. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5414.2003.02292.x
Swisher, K. (2013). BPhysically together^: Here’s the internal yahoo no-
work-from-home memo for remote workers and maybe more.
Retrieved from http://allthingsd.com/20130222/physically-
together-heres-the-internal-yahoo-no-work-from-home-memo-
which-extends-beyond-remote-workers/
Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Vega, R. P., Anderson, A. J., & Kaplan, S. A. (2015). A within-person
examination of the effects of telework. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 30(2), 313–323.
Virick, M., DaSilva, N., & Arrington, K. (2010). Moderators of the cur-
vilinear 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.
Wajcman, J., & Rose, E. (2011). Constant connectivity: rethinking inter-
ruptions at work. Organization Studies, 32(7), 941–961.
Wayne, S., & Liden, R. (1995). Effects of impression management on
performance ratings - a longitudinal-study. Academy of
Management Journal, 38(1), 232–260. https://doi.org/10.2307/
256734
Wiesenfeld, B. M., Raghuram, S., & Garud, R. (2001). Organizational
identification among virtual workers: the role of need for affiliation
and perceived work-based social support. Journal of Management,
27(2), 213–229.
Wood, R. E. (1986). Task complexity: definition of the construct.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37(1),
60–82.
WorldatWork (2011). Telework 2011: A WorldatWork special report.
Retrieved from http://www.worldatwork.org/waw/adimLink?id=53034
Wright, T. A., & Bonnet, D. G. (2002). The moderating effects of em-
ployee tenure on the relation between organizational commitment
and job performance: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87, 1183–1190.
Zhong, C. B., & House, J. (2012). Hawthorne revisited: organizational
implications of the physical work environment. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 32, 3–22.