Journal of Vocational Behavior 116 (2020) 103348

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Vocational Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jvb

Is there a price telecommuters pay? Examining the relationship

T
between telecommuting and objective career success
⁎
Timothy D. Goldena, , Kimberly A. Eddlestonb
a
Lally School of Management, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 110 8th Street,Troy, NY 12180, USA
b
D'Amore-McKim School of Business, Northeastern University, 209 Hayden Hall, Boston, MA 02115-5000, USA

A R T IC LE I N F O ABS TRA CT

Keywords: Telecommuting has long been noted for its ability to foster work-family balance and job sa-
Telecommuting tisfaction. However, for employees seeking to advance in their careers, it is commonly advised to
Telework exercise caution, since telecommuting is often viewed as signaling a lack of dedication to one's
Career Success career. Despite the prevalence of such advice, almost no research has investigated if tele-
commuting actually impacts career success in objective terms. Integrating research on the flex-
ibility stigma and signaling theory, we first compared the career success of telecommuters and
non-telecommuters using a sample of 405 employees matched with corporate data on promotion
and salary growth. Then, we examined the relationship between extent of telecommuting and
career success as well as the moderating influence of contextual factors. Results indicated tele-
commuters and non-telecommuters did not differ in number of promotions, but telecommuters
experienced lower salary growth. Additionally, extent of telecommuting was negatively related
to promotions and salary growth, indicating it is not simply telecommuting per se that effects
career success, but rather the extent of telecommuting. Moreover, work context played a highly
influential role. A greater number of promotions were received by extensive telecommuters when
they worked where telecommuting was highly normative, and when they engaged in higher
supplemental work. Extensive telecommuters with higher supplemental work and higher face-to-
face contact with their supervisor also received greater salary growth. Together, results challenge
previous research that has tended to portray telecommuting as harmful to one's career success by
providing a more informed understanding of how to harness its benefits.

Ever since the advent of telecommuting in the 1970s (Nilles, 1994), scholars have sought to understand its consequences for
employees' lives in and out of work (e.g., Allen, Golden, & Shockley, 2015). Telecommuting is defined as “a work practice that
involves members of an organization substituting a portion of their typical work hours … to work away from a central work-
place—typically from home—using technology to interact with others as needed to conduct work tasks” (Allen et al., 2015, p. 44). Its
usage is rapidly expanding, with estimates of over 25 million in the U.S. (Gallup, 2017; Global Workplace Analytics, 2015) and
growth rates estimated to be 11–30% in many areas of the world (Lister & Harnish, 2011; Tugend, 2014). However, despite this
growth, there exists a widespread fear that telecommuting will hurt the ability to advance in one's career (e.g., Fallon, 2016; Green,
2014; Lucas, 2013). Supporting such fears, scholars have speculated that the career prospects of telecommuters will be adversely
affected (e.g., Baruch, 2000; Cooper & Kurland, 2002; Elsbach & Cable, 2012; McCloskey & Igbaria, 2003) due to the stigma asso-
ciated with using flexible work practices (Bourdeau, Ollier-Malaterre, & Houlfort, 2019; Williams, Blair-Loy, & Berdahl, 2013). But

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: goldent@rpi.edu (T.D. Golden), k.eddleston@neu.edu (K.A. Eddleston).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.103348
Received 18 November 2018; Received in revised form 2 October 2019; Accepted 15 October 2019
Available online 20 October 2019
0001-8791/ © 2019 Published by Elsevier Inc.
T.D. Golden and K.A. Eddleston Journal of Vocational Behavior 116 (2020) 103348

are these fears and speculations warranted, or are they based more on “urban legend”?
Rather than examine the effect of telecommuting on employees' objective career success, existing research has tended to focus on
telecommuting's self-reported benefits such as employees' increased work-family balance and job satisfaction, decreased turnover
intentions and stress, saved commute time, and increased autonomy (Allen et al., 2015; Bailey & Kurland, 2002). Studies of tele-
commuters' objective career success have been rare, with the few exceptions shedding little light. A meta-analysis of studies on
consequences of telecommuting (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007) did not include any dependent variables pertaining to employees'
actual career success but rather utilized self-reported perceived career prospects. Moreover, the few studies investigating the effect of
flexible work practices like telecommuting on objective career success such as salary have yielded mixed findings (e.g., Glass, 2004;
Leslie, Manchester, Park, & Mehng, 2012; Weeden, 2005).
Notably, in these existing studies scholars have conceptualized and measured telecommuting with a binary ‘yes or no’ variable
that categorizes employees as telecommuters and non-telecommuters. While this approach is conducive to broad comparisons, it
ignores how telecommuters vary in the extent to which they work away from the office and thus, does not capture the heterogeneity
among telecommuters (Breaugh & Farabee, 2012; Golden, Veiga, & Dino, 2008; Kossek & Van Dyne, 2008). Given that individuals'
telecommuting experiences are likely to differ significantly if they telecommute occasionally compared to multiple days per week
(Golden & Veiga, 2005), the potential impact on their career success is likely to also vary. In this study, we therefore respond to calls
in the telecommuting literature (Allen et al., 2015; Golden et al., 2008) to examine if the extent of telecommuting impacts career
success.
Prior telecommuting studies have also failed to investigate how the work context may buffer against the stigma associated with
using flexible work practices (Allen et al., 2015; Bourdeau et al., 2019; Perrigino, Dunford, & Wilson, 2018). Telecommuting studies
have also failed to identify how the work context contributes to the career success of employees who vary in the extent to which they
telecommute (Breaugh & Farabee, 2012; Golden et al., 2008; Kossek & Van Dyne, 2008). Yet, careers researchers have long noted the
important role that the work context plays in salary and promotion decisions (Goodman, 1975; Wayne, Liden, Graf, & Ferris, 1997).
Given that telecommuters must compete for limited promotions and salary increases while navigating the stigma associated with
working away from the office, the work context may be key in understanding why some telecommuters achieve career success similar
to non-telecommuters while other are hampered due to the flexibility stigma (Kaplan, Engelsted, Lei, & Lockwood, 2018; Williams
et al., 2013). Further, because promotions and salary increases are largely determined in comparison to peers (Ostroff & Atwater,
2003), understanding how factors in the work context can help or hinder the career success of telecommuters is important to
employees looking to progress in their careers while also telecommuting, and to organizations that are aiming to eliminate the stigma
associated with using flexible work practices (Bourdeau et al., 2019; Perrigino et al., 2018).
The present study therefore begins to fill these gaps in our knowledge of telecommuting's career impact using two widely accepted
outcomes of objective career success: promotions and salary growth (Heslin, 2005). First, building upon research on flexible work
practices that integrates signaling theory and the flexibility stigma (e.g. Bourdeau et al., 2019; Leslie et al., 2012; Williams et al.,
2013), we compare actual corporate-provided promotions and salary growth of telecommuters and non-telecommuters (N = 405).
Second, we answer calls from researchers to expand our understanding of telecommuting's career consequences by not simply
comparing telecommuters monolithically, but rather as a function of the extent of telecommuting carried out by individual tele-
commuters (Golden & Veiga, 2005). In so doing, we offer a more refined exposition of signaling theory (Spence, 1973) and the
flexibility stigma's applicability to telecommuting's career outcomes by investigating the extent of telecommuting and the con-
comitant variation in the intensity of the flexibility stigma. Third, we contribute to research on telecommuting, career success, and
the flexibility stigma by examining factors inherent in the work context that influence the degree to which the extent of tele-
commuting effects promotions and salary growth. In this way we not only address the need to refine our understanding of tele-
commuting's career consequences within the more realistic complexities of the organizational context (Allen et al., 2015), but also
answer calls from scholars to study the socially-embedded nature of factors which may activate or suppress signals associated with
the flexibility stigma (Bourdeau et al., 2019; Williams et al., 2013).

1. Theory and hypotheses

Although telecommuting has been the subject of a growing body of research, whether telecommuting affects objective career
success remains elusive (e.g. Gajendran & Harrison, 2007; Glass & Noonan, 2016). Objective career success refers to observable
indicators of career progression that can be evaluated objectively by others (Ng, Eby, Sorensen, & Feldman, 2005). In this study we
focus on promotions and salary growth (Heslin, 2005), since these are commonly viewed as advancements within an organizational
hierarchy and signify an individual's achievement and stature.
More specifically, research investigating telecommuters' career success has provided conflicting evidence. On the one hand, the
telecommuting literature widely notes the potential for telecommuting to hurt career progress (e.g., Coltrane, Miller, DeHaan, &
Stewart, 2013; Cooper & Kurland, 2002; Elsbach & Cable, 2012; McCloskey & Igbaria, 2003). It also notes how employees are often
reluctant to telecommute because they fear negative career consequences (e.g., Fallon, 2016; Green, 2014; Lucas, 2013). On the other
hand, research also suggests that telecommuting is associated with outcomes such as increased organizational commitment, job
performance, and satisfaction (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007; Golden, 2006b; Golden & Gajendran, 2019; Martin & MacDonnell,
2012), which suggests that career rewards could accrue if these outcomes are recognized and rewarded by managers. Further, the few
existing studies that examined the career success of telecommuters and other flexible workers add little clarity, as this research has
shown lower wage growth (Glass, 2004), higher wages (Leslie et al., 2012; Weeden, 2005) or substantial variation indicating little or
no effect on wages (Glass & Noonan, 2016). Notably, this research tends to consider telecommuters as a homogeneous group; that is,

2
T.D. Golden and K.A. Eddleston Journal of Vocational Behavior 116 (2020) 103348

it does not consider how telecommuters vary in the extent to which they work away from the office. The research also tends to ignore
contextual factors in the work environment that might influence managerial decisions regarding promotions and salary increases.
Given the lack of clarity and precision in the literature, our objective is to look more deeply into the effect of telecommuting on
promotions and salary increases by developing a framework that considers the intensity of the stigma associated with occasional
versus extensive telecommuting and how the work context can buffer the stigma associated with telecommuting.

1.1. How the flexibility stigma affects telecommuters' objective career success

Although some research supports the ‘happy worker story’ (Weeden, 2005: 478) by demonstrating that telecommuters experience
less work-family conflict, greater job satisfaction (e.g. Gajendran & Harrison, 2007) and earn wages at least equal to, or higher, than
nontelecommuters (e.g. Gariety & Shaffer, 2001, 2007; Weeden, 2005), researchers are increasingly recognizing how telecommuting
can lead to career penalties because of the flexibility stigma (Bourdeau et al., 2019; Chung & Van der Horst, 2018; Perrigino et al.,
2018). Stigmas are not about a particular behavior per se, but rather inferences and attributions about the underlying characteristics
of the behavior that lead to negative sanctions (Goffman, 1963). The flexibility stigma refers to the devaluation of employees who use
flexible work practices, such as telecommuting, because they are seen as deviating from the work devotion schema that places work
at the center of one's life (Dumas & Sanchez-Burks, 2015; Williams et al., 2013) and construes the ideal worker as always being
available and dedicated to work (Williams et al., 2013; Williams, Berdahl, & Vandello, 2016). The work devotion schema reflects
deep cultural assumptions about work that call for intensive allegiance and undivided attention to work and the expectation that
employees will minimize time spent on personal and family demands or else risk career penalties (Williams et al., 2013; Williams
et al., 2016).
Drawing from signaling theory and attributional theories, scholars argue that telecommuters experience career penalties because
of the incongruence between using flexible work practices and the work devotion schema (Bourdeau et al., 2019; Glass & Noonan,
2016; Leslie et al., 2012). Signaling theory (Spence, 1973) explains how supervisors use employees' observable behaviors, such as
their physical presence in the workplace, to make attributions about characteristics that are hard to observe, such as devotion to work
and dedication to their job (Bourdeau et al., 2019; Glass & Noonan, 2016; Leslie et al., 2012). In turn, these attributions are related to
employees' career success above and beyond the employees' actual job performance (Bourdeau et al., 2019; Leslie et al., 2012;
Perrigino et al., 2018). The categorization of employees as more or less devoted to work biases supervisors' subsequent search for
information about the employees and their job performance (Bourdeau et al., 2019). Employees with higher work devotion attri-
butions are expected to receive positive career consequences whereas those with lower work devotion attributions receive career
penalties. Research suggests that telecommuting signals questionable dedication to work and even the possible shirking of respon-
sibilities (Casper & Harris, 2008) because their absence from the workplace is associated with a lack of devotion to work (Williams
et al., 2013; Kossek, Thompson, & Lautsch, 2015). Indeed, experimental research demonstrates that telecommuters face a significant
flexibility stigma that hurts the evaluation of their competence and commitment (Munsch, Ridgeway, & Williams, 2014).
In line with research on work-family backlash, which explores the stigma associated with using flexible work practices, super-
visors' support for the work devotion schema may lead to implicit biases against telecommuters (Perrigino et al., 2018). In other
words, the inferences and attributions supervisors make about telecommuters are often made spontaneously, without their intent or
knowledge of doing so (Elsbach, Cable, & Sherman, 2010). For example, telecommuting tends to signal an employee's prioritization of
personal and family concerns above work, regardless of the employee's actual motive for telecommuting (Golden, Veiga, & Simsek,
2006a; Kossek, Lautsch, & Eaton, 2006). Because being classified as ‘family-primary’ or ‘career-primary’ affects employees' objective
career success (Veiga, Baldridge, & Eddleston, 2004), telecommuters should experience a career penalty vis-à-vis nontelecommuters.
In support of the flexibility stigma, we therefore hypothesize that telecommuters will receive less promotions and salary growth than
nontelecommuters.
Hypothesis 1. Telecommuting is negatively related to (a) promotions and (b) salary growth, such that telecommuters receive fewer
promotions and less salary growth than those who do not telecommute.
While the above hypothesis compares telecommuters and nontelecommuters, scholars are increasingly calling for research to
consider the extent to which an individual telecommutes (Allen et al., 2015), recognizing that the flexibility stigma is likely to be
more severe for those who extensively telecommute versus those who only occasionally telecommute (Breaugh & Farabee, 2012;
Golden & Veiga, 2005; Kossek & Van Dyne, 2008). Because telecommuting enables employees to spend time and energy outside of the
workplace to care for themselves and their family (Golden, 2006a; Golden et al., 2006), supervisors are likely to interpret extensive
telecommuters' motives as self-helping and a sign of low devotion to work (Bourdeau et al., 2019). With time in the office being a
common proxy for work devotion, those who telework more extensively are likely to suffer a greater career penalty than those who
telecommute occasionally (Kossek & Van Dyne, 2008; Williams et al., 2013). Further, their reduced presence at work may make
collaboration and coordination more difficult, which could lead supervisors to infer a lack of concern for their job (Kossek & Van
Dyne, 2008). Indeed, Bourdeau et al. (2019) argued that supervisors attribute lower work devotion to employees who telework
extensively as their frequent absence from the workplace signals a violation of the work devotion schema.
In contrast, because their work is primarily conducted in the workplace, occasional telecommuters are better able to demonstrate
their accomplishments and devotion to work (Marshall, Michaels, & Mulki, 2007). Those who telecommute less extensively also
appear able to participate in informal office networks and learning opportunities, and receive mentoring and career guidance similar
to those who do not telecommute (Golden et al., 2008). Therefore, we argue that the intensity of the flexibility stigma varies with the
extent to which employees telecommute such that as the extent of telecommuting increases, less promotions and salary growth will

3
T.D. Golden and K.A. Eddleston Journal of Vocational Behavior 116 (2020) 103348

be attained.
Hypothesis 2. For telecommuters, the extent of telecommuting is negatively related to (a) promotions and (b) salary growth, such
that those who telecommute more extensively receive fewer promotions and less salary growth than those who telecommute less
extensively.

1.2. Moderating effects of work context for telecommuters

For telecommuters, while a greater extent of telecommuting is predicted to negatively affect promotions and salary growth due to
the flexibility stigma, the work context may serve to buffer that negative effect. This is because the social context is often key to
understanding stigma since what is stigmatizing in one context may not be stigmatizing in another context (Bos, Pryor, Reeder, &
Stutterheim, 2013; Crocker, Major, & Steele, 1998). Indeed, scholars have called for research to identify organizational factors that
can buffer the flexibility stigma (Bourdeau et al., 2019) and normalize the use of telecommuting (Kossek & Lautsch, 2018; Masuda,
Holtschlag, & Nicklin, 2017). Accordingly, we propose moderating effects due to three contextual factors – telecommuting norma-
tiveness in the work unit, supplemental work conducted outside of standard work hours, and face-to-face contact with one's su-
pervisor. First, because the work devotion schema is institutionalized in a work unit's practices (Williams et al., 2013), and a work
unit's endorsement for telecommuting should buffer telecommuters from lower work devotion attributions (Bourdeau et al., 2019;
Lewis & Smithson, 2001), we consider the normativeness of telecommuting in a work unit. Second, because research suggests that
telecommuters are subject to the flexibility stigma unless they send a signal that shows they are an ‘exception’ and their tele-
commuting is boosting their productivity (Glass & Noonan, 2016; Leslie et al., 2012), we consider supplemental work conducted by
telecommuters. Finally, because it has been suggested that face-to-face contact can offset the negative effects of telecommuting
(Coenen & Kok, 2014; Golden et al., 2008) by signaling one's devotion to work and dependability (Elsbach et al., 2010; Elsbach &
Cable, 2012), we consider face-to-face contact with one's supervisor.

1.3. Telecommuting normativeness

Telecommuting normativeness refers to the percentage of a work unit that telecommutes, such that when telecommuting is highly
normative, working in this way is accepted and commonplace (Gajendran, Harrison, & Delaney-Klinger, 2015). Research on tele-
commuting has studied the important role played by the prevalence of telecommuters in a work unit (Golden, 2007) and the impact
that being prototypical has on norms and reactions to employees (Bartel, Wrzesniewski, & Wiesenfeld, 2012). Work units that offer
employees the opportunity to telecommute provide a signal that they support employees' efforts to balance work and family (Casper
& Harris, 2008; Masuda et al., 2017). In work units where telecommuting is highly normative, colleagues are more accepting of
telecommuting and there are likely to be support mechanisms that include telecommuters in information channels and social net-
works that minimize isolation (Mulki, Bardhi, Lassk, & Nanavaty-Dahl, 2009). Further, because supervisors' attributions about the use
of telecommuting are embedded in the social context of their work unit, those work units where telecommuting is a more common
behavior may serve to buffer the negative effects of extensive telecommuting (Bourdeau et al., 2019). As such, in work units where
telecommuting is the norm, more extensive telecommuting should be socially acceptable, the flexibility stigma less salient, and thus,
promotions and salary growth less penalized as telecommuting increases.
In contrast, in work units where telecommuting is less normative, the flexibility stigma associated with telecommuting is likely to
be exacerbated. A fundamental aspect of stigmas concerns the degree to which they are noticed or concealed, whereby a greater
recognition of differences leads to perceptions of norm violations (Bos et al., 2013). Signaling theory explains how characteristics that
distinguish one individual from their cohort serve to activate signals, making those signals pronounced (Connelly, Certo, Ireland, &
Reutzel, 2011). For example, if only a few (or no) coworkers telecommute, extensive telecommuting becomes more obvious to
nontelecommuters and their supervisors (Kossek & Van Dyne, 2008; Perrigino et al., 2018). Given that careers are often viewed as a
tournament for career rewards (Rosenbaum, 1979), any potential negative connotations associated with telecommuting are likely to
be especially salient when telecommuting is less normative, especially for those who telecommute more extensively. Moreover,
individuals who telecommute extensively may have a particularly difficult time remaining fully integrated within informal office
information channels when telecommuting is less normative (Golden et al., 2006). In these situations extensive telecommuters are
less likely to become central actors in social networks or considered for developmental opportunities that require a physical presence
in the workplace (Marshall et al., 2007; Mulki et al., 2009), thus hindering their career success relative to peers who telecommute
less. Accordingly, telecommuting normativeness is expected to buffer the negative relationship between the extent of telecommuting
and promotions and salary growth.
Hypothesis 3. Telecommuting normativeness moderates the relationship between the extent of telecommuting and (a) promotions
and (b) salary growth, such that when telecommuting normativeness is high, individuals who telecommute more extensively will
receive greater promotions and salary growth in comparison to when telecommuting normativeness is low.

1.4. Supplemental work

Supplemental work represents the additional time individuals spend on work-related activities outside of normal working hours,
such as during evenings and weekends (Fenner & Renn, 2004; Venkatesh & Vitalari, 1992). Higher supplemental work is likely to

4
T.D. Golden and K.A. Eddleston Journal of Vocational Behavior 116 (2020) 103348

signal a telecommuter's devotion to their work and organization, thereby countering the negative signal that telecommuting is being
carried out to further personal and family considerations at the expense of work (Ryan & Kossek, 2008; Stevens & Szajna, 1998). This
is in line with research that has suggested that telecommuters are subject to bias unless they signal that their telecommuting is
enhancing their productivity (Glass & Noonan, 2016; Leslie et al., 2012). By offering an accompanying signal that indicates ded-
ication and devotion to their job, higher supplemental work is likely to off-set the intense flexibility stigma associated with extensive
telecommuting. In these situations, higher supplemental work provides assurances to managers that those who extensively tele-
commute are none-the-less hardworking and fully devoted (Golden, 2012), and that they are determined to succeed irrespective of
their physical absence from the office (Piskurich, 1998). In turn, supervisors who perceive employees as devoted to work tend to
reciprocate and reward them with career premiums above and beyond the career advancement that would have resulted solely from
the employees' job performance (Bourdeau et al., 2019).
However, for extensive telecommuters who perform little or no supplemental work, the flexibility stigma is likely to be reinforced
and intensified as their telecommuting is seen as motivated by personal and family concerns rather than their devotion to work
(Bourdeau et al., 2019; Leslie et al., 2012). That is, by not performing much supplemental work, extensive telecommuters may
inadvertently signal that they have chosen telecommuting to benefit personal or family considerations, even if this is not true
(DuBrin, 1991; Riley & McCloskey, 1997), thereby further signaling their deviation from the work devotion schema. As a result,
extensive telecommuters who perform little or no supplemental work should be further penalized in their careers because of their
reinforcement of the flexibility stigma associated with telecommuting. Therefore, we propose that high supplemental work will buffer
the negative relationship between the extent of telecommuting and promotions and salary growth.
Hypothesis 4. Supplemental work moderates the relationship between the extent of telecommuting and (a) promotions and (b)
salary growth, such that when supplemental work is high, individuals who telecommute more extensively will receive greater
promotions and salary growth in comparison to when supplemental work is low.

1.5. Face-to-face contact

In addition to the flexibility stigma associated with telecommuting, researchers acknowledge how telecommuters who are ex-
tensively ‘out-of-sight’ are likely to be ‘out-of-mind’ when supervisors are allocating career rewards (Kossek et al., 2015; Mulki et al.,
2009). Because many supervisors tend to use the ‘line of sight’ management style, whereby visibility signals dedication and effort,
face-time can have important implications for telecommuters (Elsbach et al., 2010; Kossek & Van Dyne, 2008). For example, research
suggests that a lack of face-time with one's supervisor contributes to career stagnation for telecommuters (Hill, Ferris, & Märtinson,
2003). Although routine face-to-face contact with one's supervisor may not necessarily equate to work effort and productivity,
supervisors often use face-time as a proxy for work devotion (Bourdeau et al., 2019). Greater face-to-face contact with one's su-
pervisor therefore portrays a higher level of involvement and interest in one's work, and furthers the development of trust and
interpersonal cooperation (Coenen & Kok, 2014). Such contact builds trust and rapport building opportunities, fosters mutual co-
operation, and enables the easy sharing of work progress (Drolet & Morris, 2000). As such, higher face-to-face contact with one's
supervisor can serve as an impression management technique for telecommuters that helps them to avoid negative judgements of
their work devotion stemming from their absence from the office (Perrigino et al., 2018).
Therefore, in line with research that has shown that face-to-face contact can offset the negative effects of telecommuting (Coenen
& Kok, 2014; Golden et al., 2008), we propose that higher face-to-face contact with one's supervisor can attenuate the negative effect
of extensive telecommuting on promotions and salary growth. Indeed, research on face-time suggests that being seen at work is
associated with managers' inferences about one's dependability, responsibility, and dedication (Elsbach et al., 2010; Elsbach & Cable,
2012). Although such inferences tend to be unintentional or unconscious, managers often make decisions about promotions and
special assignments based on employees' presence in the workplace and their face-to-face contact with them (Elsbach & Cable, 2012).
For extensive telecommuters, higher face-to-face contact with one's supervisor may be particularly important in establishing the trust
and familiarity necessary to gain the supervisor's support (Coenen & Kok, 2014) and managing the supervisor's impression of one's
productivity and devotion to work (Mulki et al., 2009). In contrast, extensive telecommuters who lack face-to-face contact with their
supervisor may unintentionally signal that they prioritize personal and family concerns over work (Kossek et al., 2015), thereby
lessening their promotions and salary growth. These arguments lead to the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 5. Face-to-face contact with one's supervisor moderates the relationship between the extent of telecommuting and (a)
promotions and (b) salary growth, such that when face-to-face contact is high, individuals who telecommute more extensively will
receive greater promotions and salary growth in comparison to when face-to-face contact is low.

2. Method

2.1. Sample and procedure

The hypotheses were tested using data from two sources: individual responses from both telecommuters and non-telecommuters,
and corporate-provided promotion and salary growth data. Respondents were professional employees in a company providing
technology services with locations throughout the U.S. The company had well-established and stable work-life programs, and senior
managers were interested in understanding the effectiveness of these work-life offerings on employees. A senior manager sent an

5
T.D. Golden and K.A. Eddleston Journal of Vocational Behavior 116 (2020) 103348

email to 1000 employees requesting their participation in an online survey and assuring them all responses would be kept con-
fidential. Complete responses were received from 461 employees, representing a 46% response rate. Identification numbers were
used to match individual responses with data from corporate records on measures of objective career success. A period of six years
was adopted because this was the longest period for which employees had been telecommuting and for which consistent records were
available. While an even longer period of time would have been preferred, similar periods have been used in other research (e.g.,
Reitman & Schneer, 2005; Stumpf & Tymon Jr., 2012) and this period offered the advantage of great stability at the company in terms
of leadership, policies, and employee retention, and in so doing helped alleviate other environmental influences. A final sample of
405 employees met the criteria for continuous employment at the company for a minimum of the six-year period. Telecommuters
were 52% male and 48% female. Due to the sensitivity of the salary and promotion data and to help preserve anonymity, age was
recorded in ranges (1 = less than 20 years; 2 = 20–29 years; 3 = 30–39 years; 4 = 40–49 years; 5 = 50–59 years; 6 = 60–69 years).

2.2. Measures

2.2.1. Extent of telecommuting

The extent of telecommuting was assessed using the measure developed by Golden and Veiga (2005) and used in a number of
studies (e.g., Golden et al., 2006; Golden et al., 2008). Respondents were asked to report the percentage of an average work week they
spent telecommuting away from the office during regular work hours, and this number was reported in percentage of hours per week
(%).

2.2.2. Promotions
The number of promotions over a six-year period for each respondent was obtained from corporate records. Measuring objective
career success in terms of the number of promotions is a longstanding practice in the careers literature (Arthur, Khapova, &
Wilderom, 2005; Seibert, Kraimer, & Liden, 2001; Turban & Dougherty, 1994). As is common with career success variables, because
the data was not normally distributed we performed a log transformation on this variable (e.g., Boudreau, Boswell, & Judge, 2001;
Lam, Ng, & Feldman, 2012).

2.2.3. Salary growth

Growth in salary was assessed using the total annual percentage of pay raises received over a six-year period for each respondent,
obtained from corporate records. This approach has been commonly used and represents a widely accepted technique for assessing
actual salary growth (Ferris, Witt, & Hochwarter, 2001; Ng et al., 2005). Pay raises for each year were summed to calculate the salary
growth for each respondent. For example, if a respondent earned a 3% (or 0.03) salary increase each of the 6 years, the total salary
growth was 0.18.

2.2.4. Telecommuting normativeness

Telecommuting normativeness was assessed by asking respondents to report the percentage of their work unit that telecommuted
(0–100%). Based on earlier research (Bartel et al., 2012; Gajendran et al., 2015; Golden, 2007), this approach captures the nor-
mativeness of telecommuting within the participant's work unit.

2.2.5. Supplemental work

The degree of supplemental work was assessed by asking respondents to report the number of hours they spent during an average
week working additional time outside of standard work hours. Grounded in existing theory (Fenner & Renn, 2004), this approach
captures the number of supplemental hours worked per week (Duxbury, Higgins, & Thomas, 1996; Venkatesh & Vitalari, 1992).

2.2.6. Face-to-face contact

On the basis of prior work (e.g. Duncan & Fiske, 2015; Golden et al., 2008; Tillema, Dijst, & Schwanen, 2010) the amount of face-
to-face contact with the supervisor was assessed by asking telecommuters to report “How frequently are you in contact with your
supervisor interacting face-to-face?” (1 = very infrequently; 5 = very frequently).

2.2.7. Control variables

Based on prior research, we controlled for age, gender (0 = male; 1 = female), organizational tenure (years), and hours worked
(Judge, Cable, Boudreau, & Bretz, 1995; Leslie et al., 2012; Ng et al., 2005).

3. Results

The means, standard deviations, and correlations among study variables are presented in Table 1. We performed hierarchical
regression analyses to test the hypotheses, the results of which are reported in Tables 2 and 3. Hypothesis 1a proposed that tele-
commuting (0 = no, 1 = yes) would be negatively related to promotions, which was not supported (Table 2, β = −0.09, ns).
Hypothesis 1b proposed that telecommuting would be negatively related to salary growth. In support of the hypothesis, tele-
commuting as a dichotomous predictor was negatively and significantly related to salary growth (Table 3, β = −0.12, p < .05;
ΔR2 = 0.01, p < .05).
Hypothesis 2a proposed that, for telecommuters, the extent of telecommuting would be negatively related to promotions, and this

6
T.D. Golden and K.A. Eddleston Journal of Vocational Behavior 116 (2020) 103348

Table 1
Descriptive statistics and correlations among variables for telecommuters.
Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Gender 0.48 0.50

2. Age 4.10 0.95 −0.14⁎
3. Organizational tenure 11.01 3.62 0.08 0.18⁎⁎
4. Hours worked 48.03 6.29 −0.09 0.19⁎⁎ 0.01
5. Extent of telecommuting 0.43 0.24 −0.22⁎⁎ 0.28⁎⁎ −0.07 0.23⁎⁎
6. Promotions 0.54 0.11 0.12 −0.02 0.19⁎⁎ 0.07 −0.23⁎⁎
7. Salary growth 0.19 0.18 0.02 −0.08 0.19⁎⁎ −0.07 −0.21⁎⁎ 0.61⁎⁎
8. Telecommuting normativeness 0.32 0.15 0.00 −0.11 0.04 −0.01 0.01 0.12 0.16⁎
9. Supplemental work 4.94 5.47 −0.01 −0.06 −0.06 0.39⁎⁎ −0.15⁎ 0.28⁎⁎ 0.32⁎⁎ −0.01
10.Face-to-face contact 2.60 1.42 0.11 −0.25⁎⁎ 0.04 −0.11 −0.39⁎⁎ 0.06 0.02 0.07 0.00

Note. Promotions are log transformed. Coding of variables: gender: 0 = male, 1 = female.
⁎
p < .05.
⁎⁎
p < .01.

Table 2
Hierarchical regression analyses for promotions.
Model Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

Step 1: Controls
Age −0.05 −0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02
Gender 0.10 0.02 0.06 0.07 0.06
Organizational tenure 0.20⁎⁎ 0.22⁎⁎⁎ 0.17⁎ 0.18⁎⁎ 0.18⁎⁎
Hours worked 0.09 0.04 0.13⁎ 0.01 0.02
Step 2
Telecommuting (yes/no) −0.09
Extent of telecommuting −0.23⁎⁎⁎ −0.19⁎⁎ −0.15
Step 3
Telecommuting normativeness 0.11 0.14⁎
Supplemental work 0.27⁎⁎⁎ 0.21⁎⁎
Face-to-face contact −0.04 −0.01
Step 4
Telecommuting normativeness × extent of telecommuting −0.15⁎
Supplemental work × extent of telecommuting −0.14⁎
Face-to-face contact × extent of telecommuting 0.08
ΔR2 0.06⁎⁎ 0.01 0.04⁎⁎⁎ 0.07⁎⁎⁎ 0.03⁎
R2 0.06 0.05 0.10 0.17 0.21
Adjusted R2 0.04 0.04 0.08 0.14 0.17
F 3.50⁎⁎ 4.30⁎⁎ 5.14⁎⁎⁎ 5.81⁎⁎⁎ 5.14⁎⁎⁎

Note: Respondents for models 1, 3, 4, 5 include telecommuters (N = 239); respondents for model 2 includes telecommuters and non-telecommuters
(N = 405). Standardized regression coefficients are reported. Calculations are based on logarithmic values for promotions. Coding of variables:
gender: 0 = male, 1 = female; telecommuting: 0 = no, 1 = yes.
⁎
p < .05.
⁎⁎
p < .01.
⁎⁎⁎
p < .001.

was supported (Table 2, β = −0.23, p < .001; ΔR2 = 0.04, p < .001). Similarly, Hypothesis 2b, which proposed that the extent of
telecommuting would be negatively related to salary growth, was also supported (Table 3, β = −0.18; p < .01; ΔR2 = 0.03,
p < .01).
To assess the moderating hypotheses for telecommuters, variables were centered prior to constructing the interaction terms.
Hypothesis 3 proposed that the relationship between the extent of telecommuting and (a) promotions and (b) salary growth would be
moderated by telecommuting normativeness, such that when telecommuting normativeness is high, individuals who telecommute
more extensively will receive greater promotions and salary growth in comparison to when telecommuting normativeness is low. In
support of Hypothesis 3a, telecommuting normativeness moderated the relationship between the extent of telecommuting and
promotions (Table 2, β = −0.15, p < .05; ΔR2 = 0.03, p < .05). However, Hypothesis 3b was not supported (Table 3, β = −0.04,
ns). To aid in interpreting the interaction for Hypothesis 3a, we followed the procedures of Cohen, Cohen, West, and Aiken (2003). As
shown in Fig. 1, telecommuters in work units in which telecommuting was more normative received a greater number of promotions
than those in units where telecommuting was less normative. In comparison, those in work units in which telecommuting was less
normative received fewer promotions at each level of telecommuting. Moreover, while higher telecommuting normativeness ap-
peared to enhance promotions for those who telecommuted occasionally, the benefits diminished somewhat for those who tele-
commuted more extensively. Simple slope tests were supportive, with the slope negative at high levels of normativeness (−0.38,
p < .001) and not significant at low levels (−0.09, n.s.).

7
T.D. Golden and K.A. Eddleston Journal of Vocational Behavior 116 (2020) 103348

Table 3
Hierarchical regression analyses for salary growth.
Model Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

Step 1: Controls
Age −0.12 −0.21⁎⁎⁎ −0.07 −0.04 −0.05
Gender −0.02 −0.02 −0.05 −0.04 −0.04
Organizational tenure 0.22⁎⁎ 0.12⁎ 0.20⁎⁎ 0.22⁎⁎⁎ 0.22⁎⁎⁎
Hours worked −0.05 −0.08 −0.02 −0.20⁎⁎ −0.20⁎⁎
Step 2
Telecommuting (yes/no) −0.12⁎
Extent of telecommuting −0.18⁎⁎ −0.12 −0.03
Step 3
Telecommuting normativeness 0.14 0.12
Supplemental work 0.39⁎⁎⁎ 0.33⁎⁎⁎
Face-to-face contact −0.08 0.00
Step 4
Telecommuting normativeness × extent of telecommuting −0.04
Supplemental work × extent of telecommuting −0.21⁎⁎
Face-to-face contact × extent of telecommuting 0.18⁎
ΔR2 0.06⁎⁎ 0.01⁎ 0.03⁎⁎ 0.14⁎⁎⁎ 0.04⁎⁎
R2 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.23 0.27
Adjusted R2 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.20 0.23
F 3.37⁎ 6.20⁎⁎⁎ 4.11⁎⁎ 8.27⁎⁎⁎ 7.41⁎⁎⁎

Note: Respondents for models 1, 3, 4, 5 include telecommuters (N = 239); Respondents for model 2 includes telecommuters and non-telecommuters
(N = 405). Standardized regression coefficients are reported. Coding of variables: gender: 0 = male, 1 = female; telecommuting: 0 = no, 1 = yes.
⁎
p < .05.
⁎⁎
p < .01.
⁎⁎⁎
p < .001.

Fig. 1. Moderating effect of telecommuting normativeness on the relationship between the extent of telecommuting and promotions.

Hypothesis 4 proposed that the relationship between the extent of telecommuting and (a) promotions and (b) salary growth would
be moderated by supplemental work such that when supplemental work is high, individuals who telecommute more extensively
would receive greater promotions and salary growth in comparison to when supplemental work was low. Results were supported for
both Hypothesis 4a, promotions (Table 2, β = −0.14, p < .05), and Hypothesis 4b, salary growth (Table 3, β = −0.21, p < .01). As
shown in Fig. 2, telecommuters with higher supplemental work received more promotions at each level of telecommuting than
telecommuters with less supplemental work, and the benefits were more apparent at less extensive levels of telecommuting. In
comparison, those with less supplemental work received fewer promotions with promotions decreasing less sharply as the extent of
telecommuting increased. Simple slope tests revealed the slope was significant at higher levels of supplemental work (−0.37,
p < .001) but not at lower levels (−0.08, ns). Similarly, as shown in Fig. 3, telecommuters with higher supplemental work ex-
perienced more salary growth relative to those who engaged in less supplemental work, with salary growth highest among those who

8
T.D. Golden and K.A. Eddleston Journal of Vocational Behavior 116 (2020) 103348

Fig. 2. Moderating effect of supplemental work on the relationship between the extent of telecommuting and promotions.

Fig. 3. Moderating effect of supplemental work on the relationship between the extent of telecommuting and salary growth.

engaged in high supplemental work and telecommuted less extensively. Simple slopes were significant at high (−0.32, p < .001) but
not low levels (0.02, ns). Thus, while higher supplemental work appeared to enhance the promotions and salary growth for those who
telecommuted more extensively, the benefits were greatest for those who telecommuted less extensively.
Finally, Hypothesis 5 proposed that the relationship between the extent of telecommuting and (a) promotions and (b) salary
growth would be moderated by face-to-face contact with the supervisor, which was not supported for promotions (Table 2, β = 0.08,
ns) but was supported for salary growth (Table 3, β = 0.18, p < .05). As shown in Fig. 4, extensive telecommuters with high face-to-
face contact with their supervisor had higher salary growth compared to those with less face-to-face contact. Further, it appears that
telecommuters with high face-to-face contact do not experience lower salary growth regardless of the extent of telecommuting.
Simple slope tests were significant at low (−0.22, p < .001) but not high levels (−0.05, n.s.). Thus, Hypothesis 5b was supported.

4. Discussion

To investigate the widespread fear that telecommuting hurts the ability to advance in one's career, this study examines tele-
commuters' objective career success using survey data from 405 employees matched with corporate-provided promotions and salary
growth data. Drawing from research on the flexibility stigma which integrates signaling theory with attribution theories, we first
compared telecommuters to non-telecommuters and found that they did not differ in the number of promotions received, although
telecommuters had lower salary growth. We then extended insight on the flexibility stigma by arguing that the stigma associated with

9
T.D. Golden and K.A. Eddleston Journal of Vocational Behavior 116 (2020) 103348

Fig. 4. Moderating effect of face-to-face contact with supervisor on the relationship between the extent of telecommuting and salary growth.

telecommuting will be more intense as an employee telecommutes more extensively, thus leading to career penalties. Our results
provide support for this prediction thus demonstrating that the extent of telecommuting, rather than simply telecommuting ‘use’ per
se, negatively affects promotions and salary growth. In extending previous research and offering a more refined exposition of the
flexibility stigma, our study therefore highlights the need to consider the extent of telecommuting in studies of telecommuter career
success, so that more realistic assessments of telecommuting's impact on careers can be understood. It also suggests that future
research should compare the career penalties and stigmas associated with various types of flexible work practices, as well as the
extent of use of different flexible work practices, rather than treating them holistically as previous research has tended to do
(Bourdeau et al., 2019; Leslie et al., 2012).
Furthermore, our results highlight the influential role played by the work context that ultimately shapes telecommuters' career
success. As such, our study answers calls in the literature to identify work factors that can buffer the stigma associated with using
flexible work practices (Bourdeau et al., 2019; Kossek & Lautsch, 2018) and work-family backlash (Perrigino et al., 2018). Speci-
fically, our study found that extensive telecommuters received more promotions when they worked in units where telecommuting
was highly normative or they performed higher levels of supplemental work. Extensive telecommuters who performed higher levels
of supplemental work or had high face-to-face contact with their supervisor also experienced higher salary growth compared to those
who performed little supplemental work or lacked face-to-face interactions with their supervisor. These results not only provide
insight on how the work context can buffer the stigma associated with telecommuting, but also demonstrate the importance of the
work context in understanding the flexibility stigma since what is stigmatizing in one context may not be stigmatizing in another.
Indeed, while work context factors examined in our study tended to decrease career penalties for telecommuters including those who
telecommuted extensively, the greatest career benefits were attained by those who only occasionally telecommuted. Thus, our study
suggests comparative career premiums for occasional telecommuters who work in units where telecommuting is highly normative or
who perform high levels of supplemental work. In this way, occasional telecommuters may experience the best of both worlds; they
have the flexibility to better balance work and family (Golden et al., 2006), and when they work in units where telecommuting is
highly normative or they perform high levels of supplemental work, they may also benefit from greater promotions and salary
growth.
Interestingly, our study revealed that high face-to-face contact with one's supervisor was not associated with higher salary growth
among occasional telecommuters, yet for those who telecommuted extensively, higher face-to-face contact yielded greater salary
growth. Moreover, as shown in Fig. 4, in comparison to those with low face-to-face contact, high face-to-face contact with the
supervisor appeared to off-set the negative changes to salary growth across the full range of extent of telecommuting. Said differently,
with high face-to-face contact with one's supervisor, the extent of telecommuting was associated with neither a career premium nor a
penalty. Thus, higher face-to-face contact with one's supervisor appears to be an effective impression management strategy that
buffers the effects of telecommuting, and this appears to benefit extensive telecommuters more than occasional telecommuters.
Building on our study, future research might seek to identify additional features of face-to-face interactions and additional contextual
factors that could further help extensive telecommuters minimize the intensity of the flexibility stigma and signal their devotion to
work. As pointed out by other scholars, more research is needed to identify organizational factors that can normalize the use of
telecommuting (Kossek & Lautsch, 2018; Masuda et al., 2017) and help buffer negative attributions associated with the flexibility
stigma (Bourdeau et al., 2019; Williams et al., 2013).
Taken together, our results suggest that telecommuting's effect on career success is more complex than previously thought, and
that unpacking the interplay between the extent of telecommuting and additional factors in the work context may be especially

10
T.D. Golden and K.A. Eddleston Journal of Vocational Behavior 116 (2020) 103348

informative in future research. Unlike previous studies which portray adverse consequences for telecommuter's careers success (e.g.
Cooper & Kurland, 2002; Elsbach & Cable, 2012), this study finds that combinations of the extent of telecommuting and factors in the
work context may benefit some telecommuters over others, and that telecommuting is not necessarily detrimental to one's career
success compared to non-telecommuters. Moreover, in-line with meta-analytic research which found factors that predict promotions
and salary tend to vary (Ng et al., 2005), our study revealed that telecommuters' promotions may not be accompanied by salary
increases. From a flexibility stigma perspective, our results therefore suggest that the intensity of the negative attributions associated
with telecommuting which signal a lack of devotion to work tend to vary with the extent of telecommuting. Our results also de-
monstrate the importance of the work context in understanding the career penalties and premiums experienced by occasional versus
more extensive telecommuters. Clearly more research is needed into the career consequences of telecommuting and how the flex-
ibility stigma appears to vary within different work contexts.

4.1. Limitations

Although this study minimized common method bias by collecting data from two sources, there are some limitations that prevent
us from asserting more definitive conclusions. First, although results suggested that the extent of telecommuting was negatively
related to promotions and salary growth, we cannot categorically conclude that the extent of telecommuting caused fewer promotions
or lower salary growth. Any causal conclusions would require a longitudinal design that could isolate the effects of telecommuting
over time from factors that have been found to influence career success (Judge et al., 1995; Ng et al., 2005). Second, the company did
not provide data on respondents' specific salary because it believed that providing such data would risk violating confidentiality.
Having access to individual-level data on salary would have allowed a more robust examination of our hypotheses. Third, in this
study we analyzed data for employees who remained in the organization over the study period. As such, future research should
investigate telecommuting's impact on turnover. It would also be useful to investigate subjective career success in addition to ob-
jective career success, so that the full range of career outcomes associated with the extent of telecommuting can be more completely
understood. Fourth, assertions were made about the possible effects of attributions and signals related to the flexibility stigma
without actually measuring such attributional processes or signals. In particular, we extended previous research that has linked the
use of flexible work practices to signals indicating a prioritization of family over work (Leslie et al., 2012; Veiga et al., 2004) and a
lack of devotion to work (Bourdeau et al., 2019; Williams et al., 2013) by suggesting that this signal was stronger with more extensive
telecommuting. Although our approach reflects previous research on signaling theory that uses observable characteristics as proxies
for attitudes and traits (Connelly et al., 2011) as well as research that demonstrates how attributions and trait inferences about the
use of flexible work practices tend to be unintentional and unconscious (Elsbach et al., 2010; Leslie et al., 2012), future research
should seek to gather information on the specific signals and attributions associated with occasional versus extensive telecommuters
across work contexts.
Additionally, although we examined a large sample of employees in a company with an active telecommuting program, we cannot
conclude that our findings are generalizable to all individuals or organizations. For example, extrapolating from our findings re-
garding telecommuting normativeness suggests that in organizations where telecommuting is uncommon or discouraged, even oc-
casional telecommuters may be penalized. Future research should therefore explore how an organization's support for work-family
balance and telecommuting practices affects the career success of occasional versus extensive telecommuters, and analyze data from
multiple companies to ensure the applicability of our results. Moreover, given that the sample in our study is drawn from profes-
sional-level employees in a company providing technology services, these employees were comfortable using technology and had
significant autonomy in conducting their work. As such, it appears our results would apply to similar professional-level employees in
other industries who have discretion in where and how they work. For non-professional level employees who lack autonomy,
however, our results are less applicable, regardless of industry. Similarly, our results would likely not apply to organizations and
industries where telecommuting is rarely possible, for example, when the majority of jobs require employees to perform their job at
the workplace (i.e. hotels, restaurants, hospitals). Future research should therefore include a broad range of employees in other
organizations and industries with different career development policies and practices in order to ensure our results are widely
generalizable.

4.2. Implications for practice

Although the potential for telecommuting to negatively impact one's career success has often been asserted (e.g. Elsbach & Cable,
2012; Gajendran & Harrison, 2007), research to date has been equivocal and has ignored the heterogeneity among telecommuters.
Contrary to ‘urban legend’, findings from our study suggest telecommuters do not differ from non-telecommuters in terms of pro-
motions although they do differ in salary growth. However, individuals who telecommute occasionally fare better in promotions and
salary growth than those who telecommute extensively. Thus, our results suggest that the inconsistent findings from previous re-
search regarding the impact of telecommuting on career success is likely due to variance in the extent to which telecommuters work
away from the office. We also discovered that factors in the work context can buffer the negative impact that extensive tele-
commuting has on promotions and salary growth. Specifically, extensive telecommuters received more promotions in work contexts
where telecommuting was highly normative, or when they performed a higher amount of supplemental work. Additionally, extensive
telecommuters received higher salary growth when they performed a higher amount of supplemental work or had high face-to-face
contact with their supervisor. In contrast, the careers of extensive telecommuters appear to be penalized when they work in units
where telecommuting is less normative, when they perform little supplemental work, or when they lack face-to-face contact with

11
T.D. Golden and K.A. Eddleston Journal of Vocational Behavior 116 (2020) 103348

their supervisor. Further, our results revealed that occasional telecommuters receive the greatest career benefits from working in a
unit where telecommuting was highly normative, or when they performed higher levels of supplemental work. Thus, it is not simply
telecommuting per se that may hurt one's career, but rather extensive telecommuting coupled with contextual factors, which may
most determine career success.
Given the widely acknowledged work-family benefits of telecommuting, telecommuters may therefore be able to experience the
‘best of both worlds’ if they harness factors in the work context to boost their standing in competitively awarded promotion and salary
decisions. Our study also suggests that telecommuters may be able to lessen the intensity of the flexibility stigma associated with
extensive telecommuting, thereby buffering the negative effect that extensive telecommuting has on career success. In turn, em-
ployers are likely to benefit from dedicated and content employees. In this way, telecommuters and their organizations should be
better able to benefit from this increasingly popular work mode.

References

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.
Arthur, M. B., Khapova, S. N., & Wilderom, C. P. (2005). Career success in a boundaryless career world. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(2), 177–202.
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(4), 383–400.
Bartel, C. A., Wrzesniewski, A., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (2012). Knowing where you stand: Physical isolation, perceived respect, and organizational identification among
virtual employees. Organization Science, 23(3), 743–757.
Baruch, Y. (2000). Teleworking: Benefits and pitfalls as perceived by professionals and managers. New Technology, Work and Employment, 15(1), 34–49.
Bos, A. E., Pryor, J. B., Reeder, G. D., & Stutterheim, S. E. (2013). Stigma: Advances in theory and research. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 35(1), 1–9.
Boudreau, J. W., Boswell, W. R., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Effects of personality on executive career success in the United States and Europe. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 58(1), 53–81.
Bourdeau, S., Ollier-Malaterre, A., & Houlfort, N. (2019). Not all work-life policies are created equal: Career consequences of using enabling versus enclosing work-life
policies. Academy of Management Review, 44(1), 172–193.
Breaugh, J. A., & Farabee, A. M. (2012). Telecommuting and flexible work hours: Alternative work arrangements that can improve the quality of work life. Work and
quality of life (pp. 251–274). Dordrecht: Springer.
Casper, W. J., & Harris, C. M. (2008). Work-life benefits and organizational attachment: Self-interest utility and signaling theory models. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
72(1), 95–109.
Chung, H., & Van der Horst, M. (2018). Women's employment patterns after childbirth and the perceived access to and use of flexitime and teleworking. Human
Relations, 71(1), 47–72.
Coenen, M., & Kok, R. A. (2014). Workplace flexibility and new product development performance: The role of telework and flexible work schedules. European
Management Journal, 32(4), 564–576.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Coltrane, S., Miller, E. C., DeHaan, T., & Stewart, L. (2013). Fathers and the flexibility stigma. Journal of Social Issues, 69(2), 279–302.
Connelly, B. L., Certo, S. T., Ireland, R. D., & Reutzel, C. R. (2011). Signaling theory: A review and assessment. Journal of Management, 37(1), 39–67.
Cooper, C. D., & Kurland, N. B. (2002). Telecommuting, professional isolation, and employee development in public and private organizations. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 23(4), 511–532.
Crocker, J., Major, B., & Steele, C. (1998). Social stigma. In S. Fiske, D. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.). Handbook of social psychology (pp. 504–553). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Drolet, A. L., & Morris, M. W. (2000). Rapport in conflict resolution: Accounting for how face-to-face contact fosters mutual cooperation in mixed-motive conflicts.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36(1), 26–50.
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(3c), 1223–1234.
Dumas, T. L., & Sanchez-Burks, J. (2015). The professional, the personal, and the ideal worker: Pressures and objectives shaping the boundary between life domains.
The Academy of Management Annals, 9(1), 803–843.
Duncan, S., & Fiske, D. W. (2015). Face-to-face interaction: Research, methods, and theory. Routledge.
Duxbury, L. E., Higgins, C. A., & Thomas, D. R. (1996). Work and family environments and the adoption of computer-supported supplemental work-at-home. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 49(1), 1–23.
Elsbach, K., & Cable, D. (2012). Why showing your face at work matters. MIT Sloan Management Review, 53(4), 10.
Elsbach, K. D., Cable, D. M., & Sherman, J. W. (2010). How passive ‘face time’ affects perceptions of employees: Evidence of spontaneous trait inference. Human
Relations, 63(6), 735–760.
Fallon, N. (2016). What remote workers need to know about career development. August 3. Retrieved on March 29, 2019 from Business News Dailyhttps://www.
businessnewsdaily.com/9293-remote-worker-career-development.html.
Fenner, G. H., & Renn, R. W. (2004). Technology-assisted supplemental work: Construct definition and a research framework. Human Resource Management, 43(2–3),
179–200.
Ferris, G. R., Witt, L. A., & Hochwarter, W. A. (2001). Interaction of social skill and general mental ability on job performance and salary. Journal of Applied Psychology,
86(6), 1075.
Gajendran, R. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2007). The good, the bad, and the unknown about telecommuting: Meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual
consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(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, L. L. C. (2017). State of the American workplace: Employee engagement insights for US business leaders. Washington, DC. Retrieved on March 16, 2019 from
http://www.gallup.com.
Gariety, B. S., & Shaffer, S. (2001). Wage differentials associated with flextime. Monthly Lab. Rev. 124, 68.
Gariety, B. S., & Shaffer, S. (2007). Wage differentials associated with working at home. Monthly Lab. Rev. 130, 61.
Glass, J. (2004). Blessing or curse? Work-family policies and mother's wage growth over time. Work and Occupations, 31(3), 367–394.
Glass, J. L., & Noonan, M. C. (2016). Telecommuting and earnings trajectories among American women and men 1989–2008. Social Forces, 95(1), 217–250.
Global Workplace Analytics (2015, February 23). Latest telecommuting statistics. Retrieved on February 9, 2019 from http://globalworkplaceanalytics.com/
telecommuting-statistics.
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Spectrum.
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, 176–187.
Golden, T. D. (2006b). The role of relationships in understanding telecommuter satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(3), 319–340.
Golden, T. D. (2012). Altering the effects of work and family conflict on exhaustion: Telework during traditional and nontraditional work hours. Journal of Business and

12
T.D. Golden and K.A. Eddleston Journal of Vocational Behavior 116 (2020) 103348

Psychology, 27(3), 255–269.

Golden, T. D., & Gajendran, R. S. (2019). Unpacking the role of a telecommuter's job in their performance: Examining job complexity, problem solving, inter-
dependence, and social support. Journal of Business and Psychology, 34(1), 55–69.
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.
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(6), 1412.
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(6), 1340.
Golden, T. (2007). Co-workers who telework and the impact on those in the office: Understanding the implications of virtual work for co-worker satisfaction and
turnover intentions. Human relations, 60(11), 1641–1667.
Goodman, P. S. (1975). Effect of perceived inequity on salary allocation decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(3), 372.
Green, L. (2014). The dark side of telecommuting: Does working from home hurt your career? The future of business collaboration. June 3. Retrieved on September 15,
2018 from PGIhttp://blog.pgi.com/2013/06/the-dark-side-of-telecommuting-does-working-from-home-hurt-your-career/.
Heslin, P. A. (2005). Conceptualizing and evaluating career success. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 113–136.
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(2), 220–241.
Judge, T. A., Cable, D. M., Boudreau, J. W., & Bretz, R. D. (1995). An empirical investigation of the predictors of executive career success. Personnel Psychology, 48(3),
485–519.
Kaplan, S., Engelsted, L., Lei, X., & Lockwood, K. (2018). Unpackaging manager mistrust in allowing telework: Comparing and integrating theoretical perspectives.
Journal of Business and Psychology, 33(3), 365–382.
Kossek, E. E., & Lautsch, B. A. (2018). Work–life flexibility for whom? Occupational status and work–life inequality in upper, middle, and lower level jobs. Academy of
Management Annals, 12(1), 5–36.
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.
Kossek, E. E., Thompson, R. J., & Lautsch, B. A. (2015). Balanced workplace flexibility. California Management Review, 57(4), 2015.
Kossek, E. E., & Van Dyne, L. (2008). Face-time matters: A cross-level model of how work-life flexibility influences work performance of individuals and groups.
Handbook of work-family integration (pp. 305–330). Academic Press.
Lam, S. S., Ng, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. (2012). The relationship between external job mobility and salary attainment across career stages. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 80(1), 129–136.
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.
Lewis, S., & Smithson, J. (2001). Sense of entitlement to support for the reconciliation of employment and family life. Human Relations, 54(11), 1455–1481.
Lister, K., & Harnish, T. (2011). The state of telework in the US. Telework Research Network (June).
Lucas, S. (2013). Does telecommuting hurt your career? Febrary 27. Retrieved on January 15, 2019 from CBS Moneywatchhttp://www.cbsnews.com/news/does-
telecommuting-hurt-your-career/.
Marshall, G. W., Michaels, C. E., & Mulki, J. P. (2007). Workplace isolation: Exploring the construct and its measurement. Psychology and Marketing, 24(3), 195–223.
Martin, B., & MacDonnell, R. (2012). Is telework effective for organizations? A meta-analysis of empirical research on perceptions of telework and organizational
outcomes. Management Research Review, 35(7), 602–616.
Masuda, A. D., Holtschlag, C., & Nicklin, J. M. (2017). Why the availability of telecommuting matters: The effects of telecommuting on engagement via goal pursuit.
Career Development International, 22(2), 200–219.
McCloskey, D. W., & Igbaria, M. (2003). Does “out of sight” mean “out of mind”? An empirical investigation of the career advancement prospects of telecommuters.
Information Resources Management Journal, 16(2), 19–34.
Mulki, J. P., Bardhi, F., Lassk, F. G., & Nanavaty-Dahl, J. (2009). Set up remote workers to thrive. MIT Sloan Management Review, 51(1), 63.
Munsch, C. L., Ridgeway, C. L., & Williams, J. C. (2014). Pluralistic ignorance and the flexibility bias: Understanding and mitigating flextime and flexplace bias at
work. Work and Occupations, 41(1), 40–62.
Ng, T. W. H., Eby, L. T., Sorensen, K. L., & Feldman, D. C. (2005). Predictors of objective and subjective career success: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 58(2),
367–408.
Nilles, J. M. (1994). Making telecommuting happen: A guide for telemanagers and telecommuters. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Ostroff, C., & Atwater, L. E. (2003). Does whom you work with matter? Effects of referent group gender and age composition on managers' compensation. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88(4), 725.
Perrigino, M. B., Dunford, B. B., & Wilson, K. S. (2018). Work–family backlash: The “dark side” of work–life balance (WLB) policies. Academy of Management Annals,
12(2), 600–630.
Piskurich, G. M. (1998). An organizational guide to telecommuting. Setting up and running a successful telecommuter program. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training
and Development.
Reitman, F., & Schneer, J. A. (2005). The long-term negative impacts of managerial career interruptions: A longitudinal study of men and women MBAs. Group &
Organization Management, 30(3), 243–262.
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, CT: Quorum/Greenwood.
Rosenbaum, J. E. (1979). Tournament mobility: Career patterns in a corporation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 220–241.
Ryan, A. M., & Kossek, E. E. (2008). Work-life policy implementation: Breaking down or creating barriers to inclusiveness? Human Resource Management, 47(2),
295–310.
Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. (2001). A social capital theory of career success. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 219–237.
Spence, M. (1973). Job market signaling. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87, 355–374.
Stevens, G., & Szajna, B. (1998). Perceptions and expectations: Why people choose a telecommuting lifestyle. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 3, 70–85.
Stumpf, S. A., & Tymon, W. G., Jr. (2012). The effects of objective career success on subsequent subjective career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 81, 345–353.
Tillema, T., Dijst, M., & Schwanen, T. (2010). Face-to-face and electronic communications in maintaining social networks: The influence of geographical and relational
distance and of information content. New Media & Society, 12(6), 965–983.
Tugend, A. (2014, March 8). It's unclearly defined, but telecommuting is fast on the rise. New York Times, B6.
Turban, D. B., & Dougherty, T. W. (1994). Role of protégé personality in receipt of mentoring and career success. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 688–702.
Veiga, J. F., Baldridge, D. C., & Eddleston, K. A. (2004). Toward understanding employee reluctance to participate in family-friendly programs. Human Resource
Management Review, 14(3), 337–351.
Venkatesh, A., & Vitalari, N. P. (1992). An emerging distributed work arrangement: An investigation of computer-based supplemental work at home. Management
Science, 38(12), 1687–1706.
Wayne, S. J., Liden, R. C., Graf, I. K., & Ferris, G. R. (1997). The role of upward influence tactics in human resource decisions. Personnel Psychology, 50(4), 979–1006.
Weeden, K. A. (2005). Is there a flexiglass ceiling? Flexible work arrangements and wages in the United States. Social Science Research, 34, 454–482.
Williams, J. C., Berdahl, J. L., & Vandello, J. A. (2016). Beyond work-life “integration”. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 515–539.
Williams, J. C., Blair-Loy, M., & Berdahl, J. L. (2013). Cultural schemas, social class, and the flexibility stigma. Journal of Social Issues, 69(2), 209–234.

13