New Ways of Working Practices : Antecedents and Outcomes [1 ed.] 9781785603020, 9781785603037

Citation preview

NEW WAYS OF WORKING PRACTICES: ANTECEDENTS AND OUTCOMES

ADVANCED SERIES IN MANAGEMENT

Previous Volumes: Relational Practices, Participative Organizing EDS. CHRIS STEYAERT AND BART VAN LOOY Autopoiesis in Organization Theory and Practice EDS. RODRIGO MAGALHAES AND RON SANCHEZ Organizations as Learning Systems “Living Composition” as an Enabling Infrastructure ED. MARJATTA MAULA Complex Systems and Evolutionary Perspectives on Organizations: The Application of Complexity Theory to Organizations ED. EVE MITLETON-KELLY Managing Imaginary Organizations: A New Perspective on Business EDS. BO HEDBERG, PHILIPPE BAUMARD AND A. YAKHLEF Systems Perspectives on Resources, Capabilities and Management Processes EDS. JOHN MORECROFT, RON SANCHEZ AND AIME´ HEENE Tracks and Frames: The Economy of Symbolic Forms in Organizations ED. K. SKOLDBERG Electronic HRM in Theory and Practice EDS. T. BONDAROUK, H. RUE¨L, AND J. C. LOOISE Commercial Diplomacy and International Business: A Conceptual and Empirical Exploration ED. H. RUE¨L (Dis)honesty in Management: Manifestations and Consequences EDS. TIIA VISSAK AND MAAJA VADI Social Media in Strategic Management EDS. MIGUEL R. OLIVAS-LUJA´N AND TANYA BONDAROUK Social Media in Human Resources Management EDS. TANYA BONDAROUK AND MIGUEL R. OLIVAS-LUJA´N Shared Services as a New Organizational Form ED. TANYA BONDAROUK Human Resource Management, Social Innovation and Technology EDS. TANYA BONDAROUK AND MIGUEL R. OLIVAS-LUJA´N Dead Firms: Causes and Effects of Cross-Border Corporate Insolvency EDS. MIGUEL M. TORRES, VIRGINIA CATHRO, AND MARIA ALEJANDRA GONZALEZ-PEREZ

NEW WAYS OF WORKING PRACTICES: ANTECEDENTS AND OUTCOMES

EDITED BY

JAN DE LEEDE University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands

United Kingdom North America India Malaysia China

Japan

Emerald Group Publishing Limited Howard House, Wagon Lane, Bingley BD16 1WA, UK First edition 2017 Copyright r 2017 Emerald Group Publishing Limited Reprints and permissions service Contact: [email protected] No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without either the prior written permission of the publisher or a licence permitting restricted copying issued in the UK by The Copyright Licensing Agency and in the USA by The Copyright Clearance Center. Any opinions expressed in the chapters are those of the authors. Whilst Emerald makes every effort to ensure the quality and accuracy of its content, Emerald makes no representation implied or otherwise, as to the chapters’ suitability and application and disclaims any warranties, express or implied, to their use. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 978-1-78560-303-7 ISSN: 1877-6361 (Series)

ISOQAR certified Management System, awarded to Emerald for adherence to Environmental standard ISO 14001:2004. Certificate Number 1985 ISO 14001

Contents

List of Contributors Introduction

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Finding the Optimal Mix between Telework and Office Hours to Enhance Employee Productivity: A Study into the Relationship between Telework Intensity and Individual Productivity, with Mediation of Intrinsic Motivation and Moderation of Office Hours Niels Hoornweg, Pascale Peters and Beatrice van der Heijden Boundaryless Work, Psychological Detachment and Sleep: Does Working ‘Anytime Anywhere’ Equal Employees Are ‘Always on’? Christin Mellner, Go¨ran Kecklund, Michiel Kompier, Amir Sariaslan and Gunnar Aronsson

vii ix

1

29

New Ways of Working and Leadership: An Empirical Study in the Service Industry Jan de Leede and Paddy Heuver

49

Understanding Teamwork Behaviors in the Use of New Ways of Working Jan de Leede and Joyce Nijland

73

Fostering Innovation: The Influence of New Ways of Working on Innovative Work Behavior Florian Moll and Jan de Leede

95

A Comparison between New Ways of Working and Sociotechnical Systems Merle Blok, Friso van der Meulen and Steven Dhondt

145

Outlook: Some HR Implications towards Normal Ways of Working Tanya Bondarouk and Jan de Leede

163

This page intentionally left blank

List of Contributors

Gunnar Aronsson

Department of Psychology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

Merle Blok

TNO, Leiden, Netherlands

Tanya Bondarouk

Human Resource Management, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands

Jan de Leede

Faculty of Behavioral, Management and Social Sciences, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands

Steven Dhondt

TNO, Leiden, Netherlands; KU Leuven, Belgium

Paddy Heuver

Sensire, P&O-PSA, Varsseveld, Netherlands

Niels Hoornweg

Kuehne + Nagel N.V., Western Europe Region, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Go¨ran Kecklund

Stress Research Institute, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

Michiel Kompier

Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University, Nijmegen, Netherlands

Christin Mellner

Department of Psychology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

Florian Moll

METRO Cash and Carry, Du¨sseldorf, Germany

Joyce Nijland

Rabobank Enschede-Haaksbergen, Netherlands

Pascale Peters

Business Administration, SHRM, Radboud University, Institute for Management Research (IMR / GAINS), Nijmegen, Netherlands

viii

List of Contributors

Amir Sariaslan

Department of Psychiatry, Medical Sciences Division, University of Oxford, England

Beatrice van der Heijden

Business Administration, SHRM, Radboud University, Institute for Management Research (IMR/GAINS), Nijmegen, The Netherlands; Open University of the Netherlands, Heerlen, The Netherlands; Kingston University, London, UK

Friso van der Meulen

TNO, Leiden, Netherlands

Introduction

New Ways of Working: About the Hype and More to Come This book is about new ways of working, about the new world of work. To put it broader, one might say it is about the future of work. New technologies and new office concepts are decisive for our working environments. New ways of working refer to broader management labels, such as ‘the new workplace’ (Holman, Wall, Clegg, Sparrow, & Howard, 2003); ‘the New World of Work’ (Gates & Rasmus, 2005); ‘new ways of organizing work’ (Kelliher & Richardson, 2012); and ‘New Ways to Work’ (Peters, Poutsma, Van der Heijden, Bakker & De Bruijn, 2014). These are all big words and concepts, and we are just at the start to understand the impact of these global trends across the world on shaping our behaviours at work. Not only in the management world, also in the facility management world, New Ways of Working (NWW) is ubiquitous. An example is the White Book of ISS entitled ‘New ways of working; the workplace of the future’ (2013) in which a global survey among facility managers is reported. According to the FM industry, virtual work will have the greatest influence on office design in 2020. We might understand the status of these ‘new’ concepts if we view them as management fashions. Abrahamson (1991, 1996) describes how management fashions work and how important they are both for practice and research. We may observe remarkable similarities with the NWW discourse. Now, it is in the ‘upswing’ phase, with many positive stories on the outcomes of NWW, although some critical studies are appearing. Still, this upswing phase is characterized by a ‘superstitious’ way of learning, as trendsetters present the new concept as a quite simple but powerful technique with quasi-magical powers. This goes along with enthusiastic stories and anecdotal evidence; you simply cannot be against these new management philosophies. Many organizations do copy these techniques, why we can label it as a fad or fashion. NWW seems to be in the upswing phase of a management fashion. Five arguments can be put to this statement. Firstly, the academic rigour of the concept is questionable, the definitions are too broad and loose. Do NWW refer to new work practices, new working environments, new office environments, new technologies, new labour relations or new management styles? If so, then the concept simply seems too broad to say something about it. If it is so general, it covers everything. Secondly, NWW is taken as a simplification of reality: the old versus the new ways of working. Thirdly, NWW as a concept is put forward with a prescriptive

x

Introduction

character. Many authors present some broad or even very detailed prescriptions of management and employee practices that have to be followed in order to get the promised benefits. Fourthly, the rate of imitation is quite high. Many boardrooms of organizations wonder if they also should follow this concept. NWW is ‘in the air’, it resonates to modern views of organizing. Finally, a lot of rhetoric accompanies NWW as the concept that finally will raise the welfare of today’s knowledge society by increasing the productivity of knowledge workers. To some extent, it is dangerous and regrettable if NWW just sticks to this phase. Regrettable, because if organizations just blind copy these management practices, they run the risk of making the same mistakes as others do. They do not take the optimal configuration of new technologies, practices and management techniques, but just copy them from others, inspired by some best practices and misinformed by many consultancy agencies that only seek their own business. So, already we see some failures in trying to implement new ways of working, or we witness some retreats. A famous example is Yahoo in 2013, whose CEO Marissa Mayer wants to have everyone at the office in ‘normal’ business hours. No more flexible working hours, no working from home, just back to normal work. She explained that people who work alone are more productive, but people who work together are more collaborative and innovative. Those competences are needed for their company at that particular phase. The next phase of a management fashion according to Abrahamson, after a short and unstable asymptote, is the downswing, symmetric to the rise and giving way to new fads and fashions.

Towards a Definition Apparently, the concept of NWW is stemming from practice and has been coined in the professional literature (e.g. Bijl, 2009; Gates & Rasmus, 2005; Hartmans & Kamperman, 2009; Veldhoen, 2005). The academic literature on new ways of working is not well elaborated (see Blok, Groenesteijn, Van den Berg, & Vink, 2011; Ten Brummelhuis, Bakker, Hetland, & Keulemans, 2012). Therefore, it is important to disentangle the concept of NWW into concepts that have been researched in order to conclude anything about the nature, the conditions and the outcomes of NWW. Only then it is possible to counter or to support the claims of NWW advocates. Only then, we can distinguish the real NWW from ‘consultancy-selling-promo-talk’ with lots of promised and non-real claims. Pioneers of Virtual Work If we follow some non-academic authors who have been pioneering with the concept of NWW in The Netherlands we can conclude that they point on some important trends in today’s world of work. However, their analytical power in dealing with the different concepts is a bit lacking. What they normally propose is to cluster some practices and label these trends into one concept: New Ways of Working.

Introduction

xi

Bijl (2009), Veldhoen (2005), Van den Haterd (2010) do not define NWW in an exclusive and clear way. They all point to important developments. Especially Veldhoen (1994, 2005) can be viewed as one of the pioneering authors on NWW. Here, we want to elaborate on his work. Veldhoen (2005) describes trends like open offices, individualization and new information technologies that enable a lot of choices in where and when to work. In his view, all these new possibilities imply a new function of the office. The nature of the office is changing from a space to work into a space to meet. Work is done at home, on the road or at the customer. The office is the place to meet each other, or to have meetings and brainstorms. Veldhoen (1994, 2005) defines the concept of workstyle as the system that regulates how people deal with one another and resources. A workstyle is the configuration of three coherent environments or dimensions: (1) the virtual environment (information technology supporting the using and sharing information and knowledge; (2) the physical environment (the building and interior design of the office) and (3) the behavioural environment or mental dimension (attitudes and behaviour that come along with collaboration, both from managers and employees). An activity-based workstyle means putting the activity at the centre and choosing the right environment in which this activity can be performed at best. This might be one of the cornerstones of NWW: providing people the freedom to choose when and where they perform their tasks and activities and therefore optimizing the time, place and tools to perform the work. In activity-based workstyle offices approximately 35% of the workers change workspace during the course of the day, 45% change every other day, 18% change 2 3 times a week and 2% use the same workspace almost always (Hartmans & Kamperman, 2009).

Many Definitions New Ways of Working (NWW) is a concept that has been defined in a broad and somewhat loose manner. Table 1 presents some of the most cited definitions. We observe some overlap as well as some differences between these definitions. In the first place, they all focus on practices in which employees can choose to work at the time and workplace they prefer. It is safe to conclude that these definitions all focus on practices in which employees experience some autonomy in when and where to work. Some authors call it autonomy, others empowerment or freedom to choose. To our understanding, this is a very basic principle of NWW and it is based on the early insights of Veldhoen (1994) that it is about providing freedom to people to choose the appropriate time and space to work. If employees may choose on their own individual workstyle, it will boost their productivity and work-life balance. In other words, one of the most important characteristics of NWW is the possibility for employees to work independently of time and workplace. Of course, it is important to know to what extent these two types of autonomy are realized. We come back to the boundaries and to this ‘degree of virtuality’ (De Leede, Kraan, den Hengst, & van Hooff, 2008) later on.

xii

Introduction

Table 1: Definitions of new ways of working. Baane, Houtkamp, and Knotter (2010, p. 42)

Blok, Groenesteijn, Schelvis, and Vink (2012, p. 5075)

NWW consist of four basic principles 1. Time and place independent work 2. Steering on output 3. Free access to knowledge, experience and information 4. Flexible labour relations. ‘This empowerment implies offering the employees more self-control and freedom by introducing flexible work arrangements. This transformation is often referred to as “the New Ways of Working” (NWW) and consists of changes that take place at four aspects: 1) the physical workspace, 2) (ICT) technology, 3) organization & management and 4) work culture’.

Ten Brummelhuis et al. (2012, p. 113)

‘Flexible work designs whereby employees can decide themselves when they work (schedule flexibility), where they work (telecommuting), and via which communication medium (smartphone, e-mail, videoconference) they work’.

De Leede and Kraijenbrink (2014, p. 7)

‘… an innovative configuration of work, technology and people whereby the employee is able to work independent of time, place and organization. It is supported by a flexible work environment which is facilitated by the latest technology and ICT. In addition, it provides more responsibility and autonomy to employees, and management will change into managing by output and trust. This new way of working will result in a higher efficiency and effectiveness to the organization and the employees’. ‘… a set of HRM practices (employee empowerment, teleworking, and creating trust relationships)’.

Peters et al. (2014, p. 2)

In the second place, most definitions also imply a technological basis: it is the Information Technology that is enabling to work independent from time and location. Through the use of internet, business networks, e-mail, social media and all kinds of collaboration technologies it is possible to work at times beyond standard office hours and to work beyond the standard office workplaces. Technology makes

Introduction

xiii

it possible. You may discuss whether this is a defining characteristic or an enabling one. However, because of the importance of IT, in most definitions IT is therefore included in the definition of NWW. This also is quite close to the origins of the concept, back in the 1980 and 1990s in which teleworking or telecommuting refers to practices to work at home by making use of IT (Bailey & Kurland, 2002; Bailyn, 1989; Baruch, 2000). Next to these similarities about autonomy and technology, the definitions begin to differ. Do characteristics like ‘steering on output’ and ‘organization & management’ belong to the defining characteristic of NWW, or not? Or is it a consequence of working in the new concept, like De Leede and Kraijenbrink (2014) state? Likewise, another difference is the way how they treat culture. Do ‘work culture’ or aspects like ‘trusting relationships’ belong to the defining characteristics of NWW, or do they belong to the conditions or even the consequences of NWW? It might be difficult to entangle these variables, however, for a thorough analysis of the concept and its outcomes, it is necessary to make a deliberate choice.

Our Definition For reasons of analytical clarity, we define NWW in a focused manner. The main characteristic of NWW is the freedom for employees to choose their working times and working places. The second characteristic is the use of IT to enable this remote work and this 24/7 possibility to work at other times. It is because information and communication technologies enable time-space compression (Harvey, 1989) that work is less bound to place and time. This second characteristic is absolutely a must, because otherwise NWW will not discriminate from traditional work that for example teachers usually do in preparing lectures or grading tests at home. That kind of work usually was paperwork, and also possible beyond business hours and beyond office workspaces. Nevertheless, it is not a practice that is characteristic for New Ways of Working. Therefore, in our definition we need to incorporate the technology. Our definition of NWW is as follows: New Ways of Working are practices in which employees are able to work independent of time, place and organization, supported by a flexible work environment which is facilitated by information technologies.

We now are able to make a list of NWW practices that are exemplary for NWW, see Table 2. It is largely based on the work of Blok et al. (2011), however we added some practices and also left some out (like management based on trust), because these seem to be conditions for the effective application of NWW practices. Having defined NWW as working independent of time, place and organization, we incorporated only the flexible working environment and the technology as part of the definition. No other variables. That is a deliberate choice. It seems important to distinguish between the concept and its conditions. Of course, we agree that NWW needs to be managed in a somewhat different way compared to the old

xiv

Introduction

Table 2: NWW practices. NWW Practice Teleworking Mobile working Satellite offices Flexible workspaces Flexible working hours Social networks

Collaborative tools

Description Doing the work (partly) from home, fully connected to the office network Enabling employees to work while commuting Offices outside an organization’s office buildings, for example at customer’s locations Flexible workspaces in the office building that are shared among employees and offer specific environments that correspond to the various tasks to facilitate effective working Allowing to start and end the workday outside of the core time Using smartphones and other mobile devices to allow employees to stay digitally connected via for example work-email at home, Facebook or LinkedIn Using smartphones and other mobile devices to enable video conferencing, digital collaboration and document sharing

situation in which people are always and simultaneously around. In Chapter 3, the new way of leadership will be discussed. And of course, it is important to having trusting relationships between managers and remote workers, or between co-workers. And we also agree with the notion of communication as an important vehicle to ensure collaboration between employees who are working on different places and different times. In Chapter 4 we will discuss the implications of NWW for teamwork. However, key is that we see all these variables as an implication of NWW, not as a defining characteristic. Who Are the NWW Workers The definition of NWW as time-and-space-independent work also excludes lots of workers in today’s organizations. In modern society, still many people work at sites that are not suitable for NWW. We may think of the sector of the hotels and restaurants: no one can think of drinking a beer at a place while the waiter is working at home only. As a consequence, workers at the hospitality sector mostly have place-dependent work. They cannot work at home nor do mobile work. The same applies for the time aspect of this kind of work. They cannot work only during the day, because most work is in the evening! As a matter of fact, they can use IT to make work easier. The same is for the healthcare sector and still for the educational sector. Mostly, work is done during business hours at special places designated for treating people and for educating them. That work is on fixed hours and on

Introduction

xv

designated places. Again, we see some trends in delivering healthcare at a distance, or online courses for universities. So part of the work maybe done like an NWW practice. However, the major part is still time-and-space-bound. The last observation leads to another nuance of work in modern society: NWW is a matter of degree. It is not black or white, either old ways of working or new ways of working. We may conclude that some parts of work like consultancy work, knowledge work, sales work, information work, game and software development might be labelled as work that can be organized typically in NWW practices. Here, mobile work, flexible and open offices, working across business hours are normal practices. Other parts of the working populations are practicing only some parts of NWW, like administrative workers, contact centre workers and public administrative workers. They may employ specific parts of NWW, or to a limited part of their work hours. We agree with Lilischkis (2003) and Vartiainen (2006) that simply on the physical dimension at least five types can be distinguished: (1) ‘on-site movers’ like farmers, doctors, security agents, (2) ‘yo-yos’ like workers in emergency services, ICT developers who work at the customer’s premises, (3) ‘pendulums’ such as teleworkers who work at home or at the office, (4) ‘nomads’ who constantly are moving from one location to another, they travel to their work without a fixed home and (5) ‘carriers’ who work on the move, transporting goods and people. These five types mainly differ on the dimension of physical location where they mainly work. Next to this, we may also distinguish between types on the temporal dimension: time and temporariness imply also a matter of degree. How much time do workers work on the company’s premises, what part are they working at home, is that only a few hours per week, or one or two days per week on a structural basis? What part of their time are they travelling, do they work across time zones? All these characteristics are indicators of the degree of implementation of NWW. The two dimensions of NWW, working independent from time and space, enable us also to state that for location-bound work it is still possible to employ NWW practices. Although it is not about mobile work or so, it might be very conceivable to implement NWW practices regarding the time dimension, see Table 2 with the NWW practice of Flexible Hours. In this case it is possible to let workers control their working times. That might be a solution for employers who want to offer social innovation practices to workers who are bound to fixed and determined locations. They can be offered flexible hours with some degree of control over their own working times. Examples of self-rostering are a promising social innovation (Garde et al., 2012; NCSI 2009; Nijp, Beckers, Geurts, Tucker, & Kompier, 2012). In our opinion, self-rostering can be viewed as a promising New Ways of Working for location-bound workers.

The Need for a Theory of NWW New Ways of Working is a concept stemming from practice. Until now, no theoretical framework has been accepted for this broad concept. Some researchers conclude

xvi

Introduction

that so far no quantitative or multi-factorial research to prove the relationships between NWW and business outcomes (Blok et al., 2011). We are just at the beginning of understanding the antecedents and outcomes of NWW. There is definitely a big need for more theory. Theory that helps us to understand why NWW leads to positive and negative outcomes, for the individual, the organization and society. New Ways of Working and the Connection with Other Concepts Reading and writing on New Ways of Working is quite an experience. Many advocates of NWW do remind us about other concepts and theories. We mentioned already concepts like social innovation, self-rostering and good old teleworking. In addition, other concepts like empowerment, high-performance work organizations, self-managing teams and virtual teams also have some characteristics in common. Now we have defined the concept of NWW as time-space-organization independent work practices supported by flexible work environments and ICT, we may compare some related concepts in a more precise way, see Table 3. The organizational perspective centres around the core of the NWW concept: the work is done by the worker independent of time, place and organization boundaries. That is the core of the concept, but within the popular NWW publications and in websites, forums and consultant communities much emphasis is laid on accompanying measures focusing on behaviour and management styles. Managing on output, managing by trust, working in teams with increased levels of autonomy, Table 3: NWW and related concepts. NWW Concept Organizational perspective

Working independent of time place organization

Related Concepts Empowerment High commitment work High-performance work organizations Self-managing teams Flexible working times Virtual teams

Technological and workspace perspective

Supported by flexible workspaces and facilitated by information technologies

Mobile work Open offices Collaborative work systems Groupware

Introduction

xvii

all these practices are strengthening the principle that employees may choose their own workplace, work times and even their preferred organization. These practices refer to a long-standing stream of research and publications on concepts around empowerment and autonomy. Then we are in the field of high commitment work systems and highperformance organizations (Appelbaum, Bailey, Berg, & Kalleberg, 2000; Osterman, 1995) who stress that specific human resource practices like job-security, training, payfor-performance, team-based work, autonomy and family-friendly practices help to build an investment in workers which they want to ‘pay back’ in higher commitment and higher performance. This idea has been highly elaborated in the field of selfmanaging teams from diverse perspectives, like organizational psychology (Campion, Medsker, & Higgs, 1993), organization design (De Sitter, Den Hertog, & Dankbaar, 1997; Hackman, 1987), and job design (Grant & Parker, 2009). Another related group of concepts is focusing around flexible working times. This has been a classic theme in many organizations. The search for more flexibility in working times is a long-standing one, in which a delicate balance is looked for between the interests of the customer, the employer and the employee. One of the recurrent debates is that on flexibility in working times (see e.g. Golden, 2012). The idea is that in offering more flexible working times to employees, they can establish preferred working times easier, so that this is more family-friendly. This is the same reasoning as in the high-performance literature. There are many flexible options, like flexitime, annualized hours and flexible schedules. Flexitime is one of the options, offering the possibility to employees to start and end the working days on their own preferred times, provided they make enough hours and are present during the ‘block hours’. Annualized hours (also called working time accounts) are another option in which employees work longer hours in busy periods and less hours in quiet periods. Longer hours are also possible in the form of compressed workweeks. Flexible work schedules with a certain degree of control by employees are also an important trend. We already mentioned that self-rostering might be the only possibility for new ways of working for those who have to work in fixed workplaces. From an NWW perspective, these flexible working time arrangements are integral part of the general idea of NWW: letting people work independent of time constraints. Of course, these time issues should fit the demands of the customers, the colleagues and the process, nonetheless within these restrictions, workers can choose their own preferred working times. The third group of concepts in the organizational perspective is represented by the literature on virtual teams and virtual work. Here, again a long and established stream of literature is present (Bailey, Leonardi, & Barley, 2012; Gilson, Maynard, Young, Vartiainen, & Hakonen, 2015; Lipnack & Stamps, 1997; Martins, Gilson, & Maynard, 2004). Globally dispersed team members who collaborate with each other across time zones are widely researched in the last 15 years. Working in these remote teams implies a lot of new challenges to overcome, both in practice and in research, such as the time zones and the 24/7 connectivity, evaluation at a distance, building trust and monitoring at a distance, cross-generational preferences (e.g. Tannenbaum, Mathieu, Salas, & Cohen, 2012). Due to the similarities between virtual teams and NWW practices, we view these themes as also relevant for NWW.

xviii

Introduction

Therefore, it is good to incorporate observations, evidence and theories that have been developed in this area and to translate them towards the topic of NWW. The technological and workspace perspective centres around the supportive technologies and working environments. The first concept is that of mobile work (Lilischkis, 2003); albeit close to the virtual team literature, the mobile work literature is distinct from it, since Toffler (1980) linked mobility to technology. Mobility in this sense means that work can be done anytime and anyplace. It can be done at home, at satellite offices, at the clients’ premises and on the road especially on the public transport. Using mobile technologies and wireless connections, it is really no longer an issue where you are to contribute to your team or colleagues. It is like Cohen (2010) who states that mobile work is both product and cause of the declining importance of place. Technology is ubiquitous, since networks, satellites and wireless options cover almost all places on earth. Given our definition of NWW, mobile working is one of the important NWW practices. The second concept focuses on open offices. Within facility management, new trends in office space design are oriented to offer more flexibility, ‘hot seats’ instead of fixed seats and open spaces where people can meet, not only work. These trends are real NWW practices, making work more independent of time and space. The main point is that the function of physical workspace nowadays has changed (Johns & Gratton, 2013; Veldhoen, 2005). Previously, offices and factories were designed to store expensive equipment and to support efficient processes. Every employee needed to be at the office. The unintended side-benefits of colocation were cultural alignment, idea generation and fellowship. Now, the private workplaces are replaced by open, flexible and transparent workspaces. The outcome is or at least intends to be a collaborative space, a creative hub where innovation might spin off from happy accidents of different cultures. The office is no longer the place to work but to meet. The third concept in the technology perspective comprises collaborative technologies and groupware (Andriessen, 2003). This is the technological source of NWW. One of the problems here is the pace of technological change. Many studies within this field do still focus on technologies of the last two decades, like e-mail, video conferencing, mobile phones and on technologies of the last decade, like document sharing, meeting tools, project management tools and social media (see also a previous volume in this series, Bondarouk & Olivas-Luja´n, 2013). However, the most recent technologies, such as 3D virtual environments are not captured to date (Gilson et al., 2015).

Theories behind NWW One of the reasons for this book is to develop some theories behind New Ways of Working. Next to this, we will present data from some empirical studies. The development of theory however, is a major objective of this volume. At the same time, it is a difficult one. We have to limit ourselves in the many theories that are present in the field of work and organization. Therefore, this book is focusing on some specific points of interest. These foci will help to select the appropriate theories

Introduction

xix

which help the research community to further develop the body of knowledge on the concept. The first focus is that our starting point is the NWW-practice. We want to take an inductive method, starting from observation of these practices of course with the help of our theories. These NWW practices in their diversity are applications of concepts-in-practice. We view NWW as a concept-in-practice. Although it is possible to think of NWW only on a conceptual level, it is our position that this is rather besides the contribution of NWW to our field. NWW stems from the practical world of contemporary organizations. Managers, HR professionals, architects, employees, ICT professionals and consultants are trying to combine new developments from the areas of technology, offices and management. Therefore, given the status of the concept of NWW and for the purpose of theoretical clarity it is better to start from the concepts-in-practice and to link them to theoretical concepts than the other way around. The risk that theories and theoretical concepts do not fit the practices in real-life contexts is simply too high. In other words, our point is to contribute to the research community by an inductive way of reasoning and research. Theories must help to explore in this relatively new world of work, with all these emerging NWW practices. The second focus is the configurational perspective. Given the nature of NWW, we will not go into specific organizational theories such as resource dependence theory, transaction cost economics, contingency theory, institutional theory, population ecology or other basic theories. Nor, we will elaborate on organizational behaviour theories, like specific leadership theories or teamwork theories. Instead, we want to explore the configurational perspective. We suppose a fit with the very nature of NWW practices. This book offers some chapters (Chapter 1 4) with the classic correlation-based approach. There, we present quantitative data to understand the hypothesized associations. However, we combine the more correlationbased research approach with a configurational approach in defining the concepts under scrutiny. We view the combination of certain NWW practices applied as typical for NWW. Moreover, we have defined the very concept of NWW as a set of practices. In parallel with the notion of human resource management bundles (Stavrou & Brewster, 2005), we think that NWW practices together can be viewed as bundles or sets that together are strengthening the hypothesized effects.

A Configurational Perspective on NWW Configurational research focuses on sets of firms sharing some key characteristics, such as strategy, goals and structures (Meyer, Tsui, & Hinings, 1993). As the review article of Short, Payne, and Ketchen (2008) shows, most configurational research is on the level of groups of companies that have similar characteristics. Patterns or profiles rather than independent variables are related to all kinds of outcomes. They propose the term ‘organizational configurations’ as a cover term and elaborate these in four other concepts: strategic groups, archetypes, generic strategies and organizational forms. The essential feature of configurational research is the focus

xx

Introduction

on similar characteristics between organizations. The constitution of these similar characteristics is carefully selected and meaningful. Just because of these careful and meaningful set of characteristics, it is possible to compare organizations and to describe, explain and predict organizational behaviour. Other researchers apply this line of reasoning also on some intraorganizational phenomena, such as human resource practices (Delery & Doty, 1996). We mentioned already the approach of the human resource management bundles. Inspired by this configurational perspective it is possible to make one step further in theory and research when we dive into the NWW concept. Our approach is focused on NWW as a set of NWW practices (see Table 2). These practices reinforce each other if they are well-designed and fit to each other. However, we also suppose that some of the NWW practices can belong together as a set of NWW practices. An example might be the combination of teleworking/home-based working and flexible hours. That is a logical combination of practices. Other companies might combine the basic NWW practices with flexible spaces (open offices, etc). Both combinations can be accompanied by some ICT tooling. In this sense it is possible to develop a typology of NWW: the basic level of NWW, a more elaborated one and the advanced level. An example of a typology of NWW is given by Van der Meulen (2014), based on the National NWW Barometer. He distinguished ‘Basic NWW’ with components like open, flexible offices, time and place independent work, new ICT and autonomy from the more advanced levels of NWW. These are the NWW Collaborative strategy (with the basic components and multifunctional and autonomous teams, knowledge sharing and new collaborative forms), the NWW Sustainable strategy (with the basic components and the green offices, green commuting, facilitating home-based work) and finally the NWW Combination strategy which combines as much of the former components. We think configurations allow us to examine which practices belong together in a powerful manner, how they relate to each other and that the outcomes are of such combinations of NWW practices. This will help us to do research in practice, because in companies it is seldom the case that only one practice is implemented and be stable for a longer period. Almost always a number of NWW practices together are implemented or developed over a period of time. A set-theoretic analysis permits a rich analysis of configurations and the effects on performance, commitment, work-life balance and other outcomes.

The Contents of This Volume This book describes the developments for everyone at the office, especially for the knowledge and information worker. We describe and analyse the trends that currently in The Netherlands is called ‘New Ways of Working’. The purpose of the book is to present some examples of New ways of working practices and to show some theory behind. The focus of the volume is on the behavioural side of NWW

Introduction

xxi

practices. Of course, we will touch upon the technologies and workplace environments behind NWW practices, however, many researchers and practitioners claim that the key for the success is not in IT, nor in facilities, it is in behaviour. Modern workers, as knowledge and information processing professionals, have to learn and to adapt to the new possibilities of collaboration at a distance. Modern managers have to learn and to show new leadership behaviours in order to get the most out of it. And modern organization theorists and consultants have to learn how to build organizations that can easily absorb these new practices. Big challenges and so exciting to reflect on it! Therefore, we present some new data on the use of NWW practices in the Dutch case as one of the leading countries in these global trends. The book is structured as follows. The chapter by Hoornweg, Peters and van der Heijden is focusing on the productivity outcomes of a specific NWW-practice: telework. It presents new data on the curvilinear relationship between telework intensity and productivity, and explores some of explanations. Strikingly, they neither found support for a mediating role of intrinsic motivation, nor for a moderation effect of the number of office hours in the relationship between telework intensity and intrinsic motivation. However, the direct relationship between telework intensity and individual productivity appeared to be moderated by the number of office hours. It was concluded that consequences for productivity are contingent on telework intensity, and that the number of office hours has an important impact on the consequences of different telework intensities. The number of week hours is also one of the themes in the second chapter of Mellner, Kecklund, Kompier, Sariaslan and Aronsson a Swedish-Dutch research team. They present a large data set of Swedish professionals and test some hypotheses on long work hours, psychological detachment and sleep. The findings include that working boundlessly in time increases the likelihood for long weekly work hours and lack of psychological detachment. Hence, employees working ‘anytime all the time’ run the risk of ‘always being on’ resulting in disturbed sleep. So, Chapter 1 and 2 present important findings for both productivity and intrinsic motivation and psychological detachment. They show the boundaries of boundary less work! The next three chapters present new data on the relationships between NWW practices and three distinct antecedents and outcomes: leadership, teamwork and innovation behaviour. De Leede and Heuver show in Chapter 3 that the implementation of NWW leads to better productivity and commitment. However, the results indicated that all three leadership behaviours, including empowerment, trust and steering on output, did not have significant moderator effects on the outcomes of NWW. Instead, they found some direct relations between the leadership behaviours and NWW. In addition, we found some interesting interaction effects, suggesting curvilinear associations between NWW and outcomes with different leadership behaviours. In Chapter 4 De Leede and Nijland deal with the team working practices along with the implemented NWW practices. They present data on the moderating effect of teamwork behaviours on outcomes of NWW, such as individual productivity, commitment and innovation behaviour. The results indicated that all five components of teamwork behaviour did not have significant moderator effects

xxii

Introduction

on the outcomes of NWW. Instead, they found some direct relations between the components of teamwork behaviours and NWW. In line with Chapter 3, they conclude that curvilinear associations exist between NWW and outcomes with different components of teamwork behaviour. Again, both chapters show the boundaries of boundary less work. In Chapter 5 Moll and De Leede explore the relationship between NWW practices and innovation behaviour. They present a literature review of virtual work and innovation and a conceptual framework. Qualitative data from three case-studies will illustrate the main issues: the complex linkages between distributed work and exploration and exploitation. Important data on the complex relationships between NWW and innovation. In Chapter 6, Blok, Van der Meulen and Dhondt explore the concept of NWW by comparing NWW with the sociotechnical systems approach. The comparison of NWW and STS reveals as most important finding that the NWW approach misses a coherent theoretical foundation for the design of organizations. NWW focuses on loose aspects of organizations, like workspace, work design, management, organizational culture and competences. This is also evident in the scientific research focused on NWW: many studies examine the impact of a specific measure (e.g. introduction of flexible workspaces) on specific aspects of the organization (e.g. social cohesion). Due to the lack of a work design approach no framework exists to test whether the introduction of NWW fits to the organization and how work is organized and divided. It is their statement that NWW can only be effective once a good theoretical foundation is provided for NWW and once a clear work design approach is deducted. This is an interesting contribution in the debate on the theoretical underpinning of NWW. In the concluding chapter, Bondarouk and De Leede take a look at the future of work. Based on the work presented in this volume they analyse the adjective ‘new’ and conclude that ‘new’ has become ‘normal’. They present a conceptual framework addressing the issue of integrating new technologies in workplaces. Finally, we will draw the lessons for HR. This volume shows that NWW practices entail much more than just home-based work or telework for a few people. It is changing everyone’s work anytime, anyplace, anyhow. At the same time, we show also some of the myths behind the buzzword of NWW and demonstrate that NWW stands for Normal Ways of Working. Jan de Leede Editor

References Abrahamson, E. (1991). Managerial fads and fashions: The diffusion and rejection of innovations. Academy of Management Review, 18, 487 517. Abrahamson, E. (1996). Management fashion. Academy of Management Review, 21, 254 285. Andriessen, J. H. E. (2003). Working with groupware. Understanding and evaluating collaboration technology. Berlin: Springer.

Introduction

xxiii

Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P., & Kalleberg, A. L. (2000). Manufacturing advantage: Why high performance work systems pay off. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Baane, R., Houtkamp, P., & Knotter, M. (2010). Het nieuwe werken ontrafeld; over bricks, bytes & behavior. Assen: Koninklijke Van Gorcum. Bailey, D. E., & Kurland, N. B. (2002). A review of telework research: Findings, new directions, and lessons for the study of modern work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 383 400. Bailey, D. E., Leonardi, B. M., & Barley, S. R. (2012). The lure of the virtual. Organization Science, 23(5), 1485 1504. Bailyn, L. (1989). Toward the perfect workplace? Communications of the ACM, 32, 460 471. Baruch, Y. (2000). Teleworking: Benefits and pitfalls as perceived by professionals and managers. New Technology, Work and Employment, 15, 34 49. Bijl, D. (2009). Aan de slag met het nieuwe werken. Zeewolde: Par CC. Blok, M., Groenesteijn, L., Schelvis, R., & Vink, P. (2012). New ways of working: Does flexibility in time and location of work change work behavior and business outcomes? Work, 41, 5075 5080. Blok, M., Groenesteijn, L., Van den Berg, C., & Vink, P. (2011). New ways of working: A proposed framework and literature review. In M. M. Robertson (Ed.), Ergonomics and health aspects. HCII 2011, LNCS 6779, (pp. 3 12). Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. Bondarouk, T., & Olivas-Luja´n, M. R. (Eds.). (2013). Social media in human resources management (Vol. 12). Advanced Series in Management. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46, 823 850. Cohen, R. L. (2010). Rethinking “mobile work”: Boundaries of space, time and social relation in the working life of mobile hairstylists. Work, Employment and Society, 24, 65 84. De Leede, J., Kraan, K. O., den Hengst, M., & van Hooff, M. L. M. (2008). Conditions for innovation behaviour of virtual team members: A ‘high-road’ for internationally dispersed virtual teams. The Journal of E-Working, 2(April), 22 46. De Leede, J., & Kraijenbrink, J. (2014). The mediating role of trust and social cohesion in the effects of new ways of working: A Dutch case study. In T. Bondarouk & M. R. Olivas-Luja´n (Eds.), Human resource management, social innovation and technology (Advanced Series in Management) (Vol. 14, pp. 3 20). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Delery, J. E., & Doty, D. H. (1996). Modes of theorizing in strategic human resource management: Tests of universalistic, contingency, and configurational performance predictions. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 802 835. De Sitter, L. U., Den Hertog, J. F., & Dankbaar, B. (1997). From complex organizations with simple jobs to simple organizations with complex jobs. Human Relations, 50, 497 534. Garde, A. H., Albertsen, K., Nabe-Nielsen, K., Carneiro, I. G., Skotte, J., Hansen, S. M., … Hansen, A˚. M. (2012). Implementation of self-rostering (the PRIO-project): Effects on working hours, recovery, and health. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 38(4), 314 326. Gates, B., & Rasmus, D. (2005). Digital workstyle: The new world of work. Microsoft White Paper. Gilson, L. L., Maynard, M. T., Young, N. C. J., Vartiainen, M., & Hakonen, M. (2015). Virtual teams research 10 years, 10 themes, and 10 opportunities. Journal of Management, 41(5), 1313 1337.

xxiv

Introduction

Golden, L. (2012). The effects of working time on productivity and firm performance: A research synthesis paper. Conditions of Work and Employment Series No. 33. Geneva: International Labour Office. Grant, A. M., & Parker, S. K. (2009). 7 Redesigning work design theories: The rise of relational and proactive perspectives. The Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 317 375. Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315 342). New York, NY: Prentice-Hall. Hartmans, R., & Kamperman, L. (2009). People organize their own flow. BOSS Magazine, 36(June), 22 26. Harvey, D. (1989). The condition of postmodernity. Oxford: Blackwell. Holman, D., Wall, T. D., Clegg, C. W., Sparrow, P., & Howard, A. (Eds.). (2003). The new workplace: A guide to the human impact of modern working practices. Chichester: Wiley. Johns, T., & Gratton, L. (2013). The third wave of virtual work. Harvard Business Review, 91(1), 66 73. Kelliher, C., & Richardson, J. (Eds.). (2012). New ways of organizing work. Developments, perspectives and experiences. New York, NY: Routledge. Lilischkis, S. (2003). More yo-yos, pendulums and nomads: Trends of mobile and multi-location work in the information society. STAR Issue Report No. 36. Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (1997). Virtual teams: Reaching across space, time, and organizations with technology. New York, NY: Wiley. Martins, L. L., Gilson, L. L., & Maynard, M. T. (2004). Virtual teams: What do we know and where do we go from here? Journal of Management, 30(6), 805 835. Meyer, A. D., Tsui, A. S., & Hinings, C. R. (1993). Configurational approaches to organizational analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1175 1195. NCSI. (2009). Individueel roosteren. Rotterdam: NCSI. Nijp, H. H., Beckers, D. G. J., Geurts, S. A. E., Tucker, P., & Kompier, M. A. J. (2012). Systematic review on the association between employee worktime control and work nonwork balance, health and well-being, and job-related outcomes. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 38(4), 299 313. Osterman, P. (1995). Work-family programs and the employment relationship. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 681 700. Peters, P., Poutsma, E., Van der Heijden, B. I. J. M., Bakker, A. B., & De Bruijn, T. (2014). Enjoying new ways to work: An HRM-process approach to study flow. Human Resource Management, 1 20. Short, J. C., Payne, G. T., & Ketchen, D. J. (2008). Research on organizational configurations: Past accomplishments and future challenges. Journal of Management, 22, 9 24. Stavrou, E. T., & Brewster, C. (2005). The configurational approach to linking strategic human resource management bundles with performance: Myth or reality? Management Revue, 16(2), 186 201. Tannenbaum, S. I., Mathieu, J. E., Salas, E., & Cohen, D. (2012). Teams are changing: Are research and practice evolving fast enough? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 5, 2 24. Ten Brummelhuis, L. L., Bakker, A. B., Hetland, J., & Keulemans, L. (2012). Do new ways of working foster work engagement? Psicothema 2012, 24(1), 113 120. Toffler, A. (1980). The third wave: The classic study of tomorrow. New York, NY: Bantam Books. Van den Haterd, B. (2010). Werken nieuwe stijl. Amsterdam: A.W. Bruna. Van der Meulen, N. (2014). Status of the new way of working: Results of the national NWOW barometer 2013 De staat van het het nieuwe werken: Resultaten van de nationale HNW barometer 2013. Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University, Rotterdam.

Introduction

xxv

Vartiainen, M. (2006). Mobile virtual work Concepts, outcomes and challenges. In J. H. E. Andriessen & M. Vartiainen (Eds.), Mobile virtual work; a new paradigm? (pp. 13 44). Berlin: Springer. Veldhoen, E. (1994). Kantoren bestaan niet meer. Rotterdam: 010 publishers. Veldhoen, E. (2005). The art of working. Den Haag: Academic Service.

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 1

Finding the Optimal Mix between Telework and Office Hours to Enhance Employee Productivity: A Study into the Relationship between Telework Intensity and Individual Productivity, with Mediation of Intrinsic Motivation and Moderation of Office Hours Niels Hoornweg, Pascale Peters and Beatrice van der Heijden

Abstract This survey study among 111 teleworkers in a bank organization investigated the relationship between telework intensity and individual productivity, and whether this relationship was mediated by employees’ intrinsic motivation. Also the moderating role of office hours in the model’s associations was studied. Based on the Job Demands-Resources Model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007) and the professional isolation literature (e.g., Golden, Vega, & Dino, 2008), we developed and tested a set of hypotheses. Partly in line with expectations, we found a direct curvilinear relationship between telework intensity and individual productivity, characterized by a slight, non-significant positive association at the low telework intensity end, and a significant negative association for the high telework intensity end. Strikingly, we neither found support for a mediating role of intrinsic motivation, nor for a moderation effect of the number of office hours in the relationship between telework intensity and intrinsic motivation. However, the direct relationship between telework intensity and individual productivity appeared to be moderated by the number of office hours. It was concluded that consequences for productivity are contingent on telework intensity, and that the number of office hours has an

New Ways of Working Practices: Antecedents and Outcomes Advanced Series in Management, Volume 16, 1 28 Copyright r 2017 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1877-6361/doi:10.1108/S1877-636120160000016002

2

Niels Hoornweg et al.

important impact on the consequences of different telework intensities. The study’s outcomes can inform management and HR practitioners to understand how to implement and appropriately make use of telework. Keywords: Telework intensity; individual productivity; intrinsic motivation; professional isolation; office hours; HRM

Introduction In the Netherlands, multiple factors, such as market-competition issues (productivity, effectivity, efficiency, and flexibility), labor-market issues (e.g., work-life balance and gender equality), the need to control overhead costs, commuting and environmental issues, and national and local policy initiatives, have been driving the adoption of flexible work practices (Peters, 2011), such as New Ways of Working, including telecommuting or teleworking. Although these latter two concepts are often used interchangeably to indicate the practice associated with flexible work arrangements where employees can (partially) work away from the central work office at any moment in time (Morganson, Major, Oborn, Verive, & Heelan, 2010), there is an important difference between the two. Telecommuting implies an elimination of daily commuting to the central office (Nilles, 1998), whereas teleworking refers to the practice of employees performing tasks in different locations than the primary workplace (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007, p. 1525), herewith not per se implying the substitution of daily commuting. In some teleworking organizations, for example, telework rather implies working overtime at home (Peters, Bleijenbergh, & Oldenkamp, 2009). In the present study, we focus upon teleworking, which may relate to working at various locations other than the central office during or outside formal working hours. Examples are working from home in an employee’s personal dwelling (Konradt, Schmook, & Ma¨lecke, 2000); mobile working, meaning that employees can work at any place (Bailey & Kurland, 2002); working from a satellite office or in a neighborhood work center, the latter housing employees from multiple organizations (Di Martino & Wirth, 1990). In the telework literature, individual productivity is one of the most acclaimed telework gains (Baker, Avery, & Crawford, 2006; Di Martino & Wirth, 1990; Dubrin, 1991; Gajendran & Harrison, 2007; Hartman, Stoner, & Arora, 1991), which is also decisive for informal and formal telework adoption by organizations (Peters & Batenburg, 2015). The relationship between telework and individual productivity, however, is not un-debated. A management decision in 2013 by Yahoo’s CEO Marissa Mayer, for example, to eliminate telework in her organization due to a loss of productivity, attracted world-wide attention (Webwereld, 2013). Mindmetre (2012), a leading consumer and business analyst company, however, reported on a study among 16,000 managers throughout the world, showing that,

Finding the Optimal Mix between Telework and Office Hours

3

for example, in 73% of the Dutch teleworking companies in the study, managers stated that telework improved their individual productivity, and that 60% of the Dutch managers indicated that productivity improvement was to be attributed to increased work motivation due to them teleworking. Both the claims of Marissa Mayer and the Mindmetre study, however, were not explicitly based on academic research. Moreover, no clear insights were given into how the central concepts were defined, and no information was provided on employees’ telework intensity and number of weekly office hours. Therefore, we aim to contribute to the discussion on telework outcomes by investigating the following research questions: What is the relationship between telework intensity and individual productivity; to what extent is this relationship mediated by intrinsic motivation; and to what extent does the number of weekly office hours play a moderating role in the relationships between, on the one hand, telework intensity and individual productivity, and, on the other hand, intrinsic motivation and individual productivity?

Contributions to the Scientific and Societal Debates By addressing these research questions, we aim to take into account two issues with current telework research, and to contribute to the societal debate on the value of flexible working. First, most telework literature treats telework as one single, undifferentiated program. According to Gajendran and Harrison (2007, p. 1529), this “overlooks the potentially important structural distinctions among work arrangements.” Although previous studies have provided insight into the curvilinear relationship between the extent of teleworking and employees’ job and life satisfaction (Virick, DaSilva, & Arrington, 2010), it is still largely unclear whether individual productivity increases or decreases with variations in telework intensity. Therefore, telework intensity, defined as “the amount of scheduled time employees spend doing tasks away from a central work location” (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007, p. 1529), needs to be taken into account in scholarly work in this field (Bailey & Kurland, 2002; Peters & Wildenbeest, 2010). Second, the mechanisms underlying the relationship between flexible work arrangements and work outcomes is under-researched (Feldman & Gainey, 1997; Kelly et al., 2008; Morganson et al., 2010). According to Bailey and Kurland (2002, p. 394), “research is largely unsuccessful in identifying and explaining what happens when people telework” and that “by establishing links (…), scholars might develop better explanations of telework’s impact.” The present study particularly looks into employees’ “individual productivity” which is defined as their self-reported effectiveness, efficiency and productiveness, and the quality of their work (cf. Staples, Hulland, & Higgins, 1999). “Effectiveness” is the degree to which an employee perceives that he or she is able to perform tasks and obligations, and is able to meet deadlines. “Efficiency” deals with the perception of the employee that he or she is able to perform tasks and obligations and to meet deadlines with the least amount

4

Niels Hoornweg et al.

of effort. “Productiveness” refers to the actually finished tasks and obligations, and the meeting of deadlines. “Quality,” in conclusion, deals with the degree to which an employee perceives to deliver his or her tasks and duties qualitatively well (ibid.). Specifically two underlying mechanisms will be looked into. First, “intrinsic motivation,” here defined as the desire to perform an activity with the goal of experiencing pleasure or satisfaction that is inherent to the activity rather than depending on an external stimulus, such as a reward (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Warr, Cook, & Wall, 1979), is frequently mentioned as a possible mechanism in the relationship between telework intensity and individual productivity (Caillier, 2012; Morganson et al., 2010; Olson, 1989; Peters & Wildenbeest, 2010). Second, “the number of office hours” (Caldwell, 1997) can be viewed as a possible important factor in the relationship between telework intensity and individual productivity. However, to the best of our knowledge, the relationship between telework intensity, intrinsic motivation, the number of office hours, and individual productivity was never scientifically studied simultaneously. In the present study, the Job Demands-Resources Model (JD-R Model) (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007), which is not only suitable to explain psychological outcomes, but also to explain objective performance outcomes’ (e.g., Bakker, Demerouti, & Verbeke, 2004, p. 91), studied performance which was conceptualized as workers’ in-role and extra-role performance as perceived by colleagues, is used to enlighten the relationship between telework intensity and individual productivity, and, particularly, to investigate whether intrinsic motivation plays a mediating role in this relationship. In addition, the phenomenon of professional isolation, referring to “a state of mind or belief that one is out of touch with others in the workplace” (Golden, Veiga, & Dino, 2008, p. 1412), can explain how insufficient connectivity and low quality of social interactions with managers (cf. Neufeld & Fang, 2005) and coworkers due to reduced office hours may affect individual productivity, possibly running through the JD-R model’s motivational process. In order to analyze the relationships between telework intensity and individual productivity, the mediating role of intrinsic motivation, and the moderating role of office hours in the model’s relationships, in the next section, we will first incorporate insights from the professional isolation literature into the JD-R model in order to develop a set of testable hypotheses. Then we will explain the study’s methodology, present and discuss our results, and conclude with some research and policy implications.

The Curvilinear Relationship between Telework Intensity and Individual Productivity There is considerable resemblance in study findings regarding the positive effect of telework on individual productivity (Shin, Sheng, & Higa, 2000). Gajendran and Harrison (2007), for example, argued that positive effects result, amongst other factors, from time savings. Due to access to telework, employees can reduce

Finding the Optimal Mix between Telework and Office Hours

5

commuting time and thus can have more time for work or for other non-workrelated activities. Moreover, telework provides workers with the opportunity to modify their work environment to their own needs which enhances efficiency. Bailey and Kurland (2002) referred to a study at IBM in which 87% of the employees reported that they believed that their productivity and effectiveness increased because of teleworking. Hartman et al. (1991) and Dubrin (1991) stated that individuals who practice telework claim that their productivity gained with 15 25%. Although some of these studies were conducted a long time ago, these findings are consistent with the findings of Mindmetre (2012). We have to bear in mind, however, that workers’ telework intensity is usually low, often not more than a (few) day(s) per week or per month, which may neither affect their working conditions much, nor its impact (Bailey & Kurland, 2002; Peters & Van der Lippe, 2007; Varma, Ho, Stanek, & Mokhtarian, 1998). Nevertheless, for some employees, telework intensity is rather high, and due to enhanced professional isolation and loss of social interactions (Neufeld & Fang, 2005), this may have detrimental effects on work outcomes (Caldwell, 1997; Golden et al., 2008), such as reduced individual productivity. Based on the theoretical outline given above, we developed the following hypotheses reflecting a direct curvilinear relationship between telework intensity and productivity: Hypothesis 1a. Low telework intensity is positively related to individual productivity. Hypothesis 1b. High telework intensity is negatively related to individual productivity.

Incorporating Insights from the Professional Isolation Literature in the Job Demands-Resources Model to Study the Possible Mediating Role of Intrinsic Motivation and the Moderating Role of Weekly Office Hours Bakker and Demerouti (2007) developed the so-called Job Demands-Resources model (JD-R model) taking into account strengths and weaknesses of existing models in the occupational health literature which explain employee well-being; basically the demand-control model of Karasek (1979), and the Effort-Reward Imbalance model of Siegrist (1996). The JD-R model can be used to analyze how job characteristics of a particular job can influence psychological outcomes, such as employee well-being (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). However, much in line with the Job Characteristics model of Hackman and Oldham (1976), who argued that job characteristics would contribute to high levels of intrinsic motivation, which enhances employees’ job satisfaction, and in turn, motivates them to improve

6

Niels Hoornweg et al.

employee performance, Bakker et al. (2004) showed the JD-R model to be also valid for explaining how job characteristics can influence performance measures. Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, and Schaufeli (2001) categorized job characteristics in two main categories: job resources and job demands. Job resources refer to “those physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of the job that are either/or, functional in achieving work goals, reduce job demands and the associated physiological and psychological costs, stimulate personal growth, learning, and development” (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007, p. 312). Job demands refer to “those physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of the job that require sustained physical and/or psychological (cognitive and emotional) effort or skills and are therefore associated with certain physiological and/or psychological costs” (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007, p. 312). Bakker and Demerouti (2007) explained the positive and negative effects of job resources and demands by pointing out two different underlying psychological processes. The first psychological process is motivational in nature. Job motivation can either be intrinsic because the job characteristics fulfill basic human needs, or extrinsic because an external stimulus increases the likelihood that employees achieve their goals. According to Bakker and Demerouti (2007), job resources have a motivation potential and can lead to positive organizational and individual consequences, for example, excellent performance. Job demands, on the other hand, can have a de-motivational potential which leads to detrimental outcomes. The second psychological process is the health impairment process. Bakker and Demerouti (2007, p. 313) stated that “poorly designed jobs or chronic job demands (…) exhaust employees’ mental and physical resources and may therefore lead to the depletion of energy,” and in turn have a negative effect on individual and/or organizational outcomes. Job demands are not necessarily negative, however, when meeting demands costs a lot of energy, they may become job stressors and may lead to job strain. These job demands can be dealt with by the use of job resources (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007).

The Mediating Role of Intrinsic Motivation in the Relationship between Telework Intensity and Individual Productivity Teleworking is often associated with workers’ intrinsic motivation (Peters & Van der Lippe, 2007; Peters & Wildenbeest, 2010), since it changes the inherent characteristics of a job (Sardeshmukh, Sharma, & Golden, 2012) which may make it more enjoyable and satisfactory (Peters, Poutsma, Van der Heijden, Bakker, & De Bruin, 2014). In scholarly studies, intrinsic motivation pertains that certain behaviors are performed for its inherent satisfaction or for its own sake (Spector, 2008), rather than for some separable consequences (Ryan & Deci, 2000). People, in this case, engage in several activities because they enjoy and derive pleasure from it, without getting a reward. The JD-R model of Bakker and Demerouti (2007) is particularly useful for elaborating the assumed curvilinear relationship between telework intensity and

Finding the Optimal Mix between Telework and Office Hours

7

individual productivity. In many telework studies, telework is regarded a job resource (cf. Peters, Kraan, & Van Echtelt, 2013; Peters et al., 2014; Peters & Van der Lippe, 2007; Peters & Wildenbeest, 2010). According to Bakker and Demerouti (2007), the effects of job demands can be buffered by job resources, such as telework. Assuming that telework can function as a job resource, the JD-R model of Bakker and Demerouti (2007) predicts that telework intensity has a positive relationship with intrinsic motivation (cf. Hackman & Oldham, 1976). Therefore, in line with previously performed telework studies, telework is believed to have the potential to change the motivational qualities of work (Morganson et al., 2010). Yet, from the professional isolation literature (e.g., Golden et al., 2008), it can be expected that the relationship between telework intensity and intrinsic motivation is not linear (Caillier, 2012). In fact, due to the increased degree of professional isolation and the earlier-mentioned loss of connectivity and social interactions (Neufeld & Fang, 2005) associated with substantial telework (Bailey & Kurland, 2002; Golden et al., 2008), a (too) high telework intensity may rather operate as a job demand than as a job resource (cf. Van den Broeck, De Cuyper, De Witte, & Vansteenkiste, 2010). This may particularly hold for those employees who have a personal need for more structure in their daily work (Slijkhuis, 2012). The more teleworkers are professionally isolated, the greater the detrimental effect of teleworking on work outcomes, such as intrinsic motivation (Caldwell, 1997). This leads to the following hypotheses: Hypothesis 2a. Low telework intensity is positively related to intrinsic motivation. Hypothesis 2b. High telework intensity is negatively related to intrinsic motivation. According to Hackman and Oldham (1976), intrinsic motivation is positively associated with individual productivity. Therefore, the following hypothesis was developed as well. Hypothesis 3. Intrinsic motivation is positively related to teleworkers’ individual productivity. In this study, it is expected that the relationship between telework intensity and individual productivity is mediated by intrinsic motivation. That is, we assume that the positive association between telework intensity and individual productivity, for the low telework intensity end (Hypothesis 1a), and the negative association with productivity, for the high telework intensity end (Hypothesis 1b), will disappear or attenuate in strength, because the relationship is expected to be (partially) mediated through intrinsic motivation. Therefore, we have formulated the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 4. The relationship between telework intensity and individual productivity is mediated by intrinsic motivation.

8

Niels Hoornweg et al.

The Moderating Role of Weekly Office Hours in the Direct and Indirect Relationships between Telework Intensity and Individual Productivity The professional isolation literature (e.g., Golden et al., 2008) provides strong reasons to believe that the number of hours spent at the office is an important moderating factor in the relationship between telework intensity and individual productivity. Professional isolation has several consequences: employees do not have social reference points to compare themselves with others (Golden et al., 2008); they are less able to share and receive tacit knowledge in order to perform their jobs more effectively (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995); and they believe that they lack relevant information to perform their jobs (ibid.). A combination of telework and traditional work can remedy or eliminate professional isolation, because it provides employees the opportunity to share and receive experiences and knowledge, and to keep in contact with their organization and coworkers (Di Martino & Wirth, 1990), which allows them to perform well, or even better. This leads to the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 5a. The effect of telework intensity on individual productivity is contingent on the number of weekly office hours. Several authors have argued that the number of weekly office hours can also influence the relationship between telework intensity and intrinsic motivation (Caldwell, 1997; Di Martino & Wirth, 1990; Golden et al., 2008), which we expect to mediate the relationship between telework intensity and individual productivity. Teleworking can have an adverse impact on intrinsic motivation, because it separates employees from their colleagues (ibid.). Indeed, previous empirical studies reported that high telework intensity without frequent office visits can result in demotivation (Caldwell, 1997). In order to avoid demotivation, Di Martino and Wirth (1990) argued that most teleworkers need to combine telework hours with weekly office hours. Also, presence at the office, in addition to telework, can positively contribute to intrinsic motivation (Golden et al., 2008). Therefore, it is expected that when teleworking is combined with longer weekly office hours, teleworkers’ intrinsic motivation is higher compared with teleworkers who combine teleworking with more infrequent office hours. Therefore, the following hypothesis has been developed: Hypothesis 5b. The effect of telework intensity on intrinsic motivation is contingent on the number of weekly office hours.

Sample and Procedure A digital questionnaire was developed and distributed among employees of a Dutch local banking office that voluntarily participated in the research. Through a contact person, the link to the online questionnaire was distributed to the employees. Two reminders were sent to increase the response rate. 160 employees of the total

Finding the Optimal Mix between Telework and Office Hours

9

population of the banking office (377 employees), filled in the online questionnaire (response rate 42.4%). The initial research population included all employees of the local bank as they were all formally given access to telework. Although telework was available to all employees, however, its prevalence largely depended upon the employees’ job category. Two broad job categories could be distinguished: those with abundant telework opportunities, characterized by a high mobility, a high degree of independence, and a possibility to substitute regular office hours for telework hours; and those with limited telework opportunities, characterized by low mobility, lower degree of independence, and for whom telework was only allowed in addition to regular office hours. In fact, although every employee, in principle, had access to telework, not everyone made use of this work arrangement. Moreover, the bank did not specify specific telework days or telework hours, which does not enable us to distinguish telework substituting contractual office hours from telework in addition to office hours. To examine the effect of telework intensity, only “actual teleworkers” were included (N = 111). Hence, teleworking either implied “teleworking outside regular office hours,” or “teleworking away from the office in addition to regular office hours.” The characteristics of this subsample of teleworkers are shown in Table 1. Note that not everyone having children has a partner at the time of the data collection, and not everyone having a partner cohabitates with his or her partner. As we strived to avoid that the effect of telework intensity and office hours would mirror the effect of job category, rather than telework intensity, job category was controlled for in our statistical analyses.

Measures Individual productivity was assessed by using four statements extracted from Baker et al. (2006) measuring employee effectiveness, efficiency, productiveness, and quality. For example, the quality item was formulated as follows: “I am satisfied with the quality of my work output.” A five-point Likert scale was used, ranging from: 1 “totally disagree” to 5 “totally agree” (Cronbach’s alpha = .96; M = 3.71; SD = 1.06). As non-normality was observed in the individual productivity variable, a cube transformation (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010) was performed (M = 63.10; SD = 34.15). Intrinsic motivation was assessed through the six-item instrument by Warr et al. (1979), which was also used by Bakker and Demerouti (2007). For example, “I take pride in doing my job as well as I can” (Warr et al., 1979, p. 145). A five-point Likert scale was used ranging from: 1 “totally disagree” to 5 “totally agree.” After deleting one item that did not fit the scale well, five items remained (Cronbach’s alpha = .64; M = 4.03; SD = .46). Weekly office hours were assessed by asking respondents how many hours per week they actually spend in the office. Telework intensity was assessed in a three-step procedure. First, the number of weekly contractual hours was asked. Second, the actual average weekly working

10

Niels Hoornweg et al.

Table 1: Characteristics of the teleworkers in the bank case study organization (percentage in brackets). Variable

Mean

Minimum

Maximum

Telework hours Office hours

5.23

1

20

31.1

16

45

Age

40.2

21

60

Sex

Male 58 (52.3%)

Female 53 (47.7%)

Yes

No

Partner Cohabiting

99 (89.2%) 94 (84.7%)

12 (10.8%) 17 (15.3%)

Children

75 (67.6%)

36 (32.4%)

Function

External service worker

Client supporter

Internal supporter

12 (10.8%)

31 (27.9%)

21 (18.9%)

Organizing External worker relations worker 27 (24.3%) 20 (18.0%)

hours were asked, including overtime and weekend work, if applicable. Third, the actual weekly working hours spent teleworking were asked. Because of the expected curvilinear relationship of telework intensity with individual productivity and intrinsic motivation, respectively, a polynomial term was created for the telework intensity variable by squaring the centered variable (M = .00, SD = 4.20) (polynomial term for telework intensity (M = 17.47, SD = 35.01)). Control Variables A number of control variables were included in the analyses. Autonomy and feedback were measured based upon the job diagnostic survey of Hackman and Oldham (1976). For both measures, three items were used (based on one question on the particular job characteristic and two statements). For example, job autonomy was measured with the question: “How much autonomy is there in your job?,” one of the associated statements being “The job gives me considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how I do the work.” Feedback was measured with the question: “To what extent does doing the job itself provide you with information about your work performance?,” one of the associated statements being: “Just doing the work required by the job provides many chances for me to figure out how well I am doing.” To measure both job characteristics, for each

Finding the Optimal Mix between Telework and Office Hours

11

item, a five-point Likert scale was used: 1 “very little or very inaccurate” and 5 “very much or very accurate” (Autonomy: Cronbach’s alpha = .69; M = 3.73; SD = .81; Feedback: Cronbach’s alpha = .74; M = 3.35; SD =.79). Other measures controlled for were: age (for age two additional polynomial terms were created due to non-linearity (squared: M = 74.63; SD = 91.49); (cubed: M = 59.37; SD = 1866.80)); overtime (calculated by subtracting contractual hours from actual worked hours (M = 4.06; SD = 3.13)); the number of children; sex of the respondent (dummy variable men = 1 (M = .52; SD = .50), women being the reference category); children living at home (having children living at home (= 1) (M = .65; SD = .48), respondents not having children living at home or not having children being the reference category); and finally, age of the youngest child (two dummy variables: having children aged 6 18 (M = .36; SD = .48); having children over 18 or no children (M = .37; SD = .49), respondents with children up to and including five years old being the reference category). In preliminary analyses, also other control variables were used. However, nonsignificant effects were deleted in a stepwise fashion in order to enhance explained variance (Hair et al., 2010). Consequently, “commuting time,” “actual weekly work hours,” “job category,” and “telework location” were not included in the reported analyses.

Data Analysis First, a correlation analysis was conducted. Second, in order to test Hypotheses 1 to 4, multiple regression analyses (N = 111) were conducted (hypotheses tested onetailed), following the procedure suggested by Baron and Kenny (1986), intrinsic motivation and (the cube transformation of) individual productivity, respectively, being the outcome variables. Third, in order to test Hypotheses 5a and 5b, two ANOVA-analyses were conducted to establish whether the number of office hours “moderated” the relationship between telework intensity and individual productivity and intrinsic motivation, respectively. Due to the curvilinear relationship between the independent variable “telework intensity” and the dependent variables “individual productivity” and “intrinsic motivation,” respectively, it was impossible to calculate the associated interaction terms between telework intensity and weekly office hours and, consequently, regression analysis was not suitable (cf. Hair et al., 2010). Therefore, two groups were created for telework intensity and two groups for office hours, combining into four telework intensity/weekly office hours categories. Based on previous studies (cf. Peters & Wildenbeest, 2010), telework intensity was considered low when the number of weekly teleworking hours were 8 hours or less (N = 92), and high when the number of weekly telework hours were over 8 hours (N = 19). Office hours categories were based on the mean weekly number of office hours in the sample, which was 32 hours. Two categories were distinguished: a group with a low number of office hours (32 weekly office hours or less; N = 59) versus a group with a high number of office hours (over 32 weekly office hours; N = 52). Four

12

Niels Hoornweg et al.

groups were created for the analyses: Group 1 comprising respondents characterized by both a low telework intensity and a low number of weekly office hours; Group 2 being characterized by a low telework intensity and a high number of weekly office hours; Group 3 being characterized by a high telework intensity and a low number of office hours; and Group 4 being characterized by both a high telework intensity and a high number of weekly office hours.

Results Descriptive Analyses Table 2 presents the bivariate correlations between all key model variables and shows that, at the univariate level, telework intensity does not correlate significantly with individual productivity (r = −.095; p > .05), however, the polynomial term for telework intensity (telework intensity squared) significantly and negatively correlates with individual productivity (r = −.185; p < .05), but no significant correlations were found between telework intensity and intrinsic motivation (r = −.095; p > .05) and the polynomial term for telework intensity and intrinsic motivation (r = .020; p > .05), respectively. Table 3 shows the mean scores of the two distinguished telework intensity worker categories (i.e., 8 telework hours or less versus more than 8 telework hours per week) on some model variables. An across-category comparison shows that those on the high telework end have significant higher contractual hours (mean difference = 3.75; p < .05); higher actual working hours (mean difference = 7.99; p < .05); higher telework hours (mean difference = 8.81; p < .05); and higher overtime hours (mean difference = 4.24; p < .05). No differences between the group means were found regarding individual productivity (mean difference = .34; p > .05) and intrinsic motivation (mean difference = .24; p > .05). Testing Hypotheses Table 4 presents the results of the final regression analysis predicting individual productivity (Model 3). Telework intensity is shown not to have a significant direct relationship with individual productivity (β = .08; p > .05). Hence, no support was found for Hypothesis 1a. The effect of the polynomial term of telework intensity (telework intensity squared), however, appeared to be significant and negative (β = −.28, p < .05) supporting Hypothesis 1b stating that a high telework intensity is negatively related to individual productivity. Figure 1 graphically represents the curvilinear relationship between telework intensity and individual productivity. The figure shows that low telework intensities can be associated with slightly, though insignificant, higher levels of individual productivity, and that higher telework levels (teleworking 8 or more hours) report lower productivity levels.

Table 2: Correlation matrix. Pearson correlation for metric variables (1 10), Spearman correlation for categorical variables (11 15). 1 1. Individual productivity 2. Intrinsic motivation

2

3

4

5

6

.125

9

10

11

12

13

−.185*

.020

.722** 1

5. Overtime

.017 −.010

.451**

6. Age

.024 −.082

.174

.070

.112

−.025 −.103

.029

−.026

.145

.076

.133 −.110

.859**

.277** 1 1 1

.135

.032

.016

.104

.013

−.071

−.180

10. Autonomy

.126 −.026

.102

.036

11. Sex

.154 −.065

.015

−.036

−.242*

.133

.089 −.023

−.066

−.358**

.260** −.351**

.011

−.025

−.221* −.320** −.200* −.320**

.298**

.038

.109

.448** 1

.101 −.051

−.018

−.163

.536** −.066

.071

.552** −.457** 1

8. Age

−.067

12. Children at home

−.074

13. Youngest child ≤5

−.076 −.022

14. Youngest child 6 18

.036

15. Youngest child >18, no children

.034 −.080

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

15

.041

.041

.123

.122

.402** −.194* −.006

−.015 −.292**

.497** −.214*

.366** −.200*

1 .314** 1 −.096

.018

1

.133

.034

−.108 1

.260** −.817** −.053 .497**

.397** −.200*

−.807**

.137 1

.030 −.171 −.962** −.466** −.574**

1

Finding the Optimal Mix between Telework and Office Hours

4. Telework intensity2

9. Number of children

14

1

−.095 −.095 1

3

8

1

3. Telework intensity

7. Age2

7

13

14 Niels Hoornweg et al.

Table 3: Mean scores telework intensity categories on several variables. Variable

Mean Score on Variable

Telework intensity Categories:

Individual productivity

Intrinsic motivation

Contractual hours

8 hours or less N = 92

3.77

4.03

31.62

More than 8 hours N = 19

3.43

4.01

35.37

Actual hours

Telework hours

Office hours

Overtime

34.96

3.72

31.22

3.34

42.95

12.53

30.42

7.58

Mean difference .34 N = 111. **p < .001.

.024

3.75**

7.99**

8.81**

.80

4.24**

Table 4: Explaining individual productivity with telework intensity, while mediated by intrinsic motivation (standardized regression coefficients). Dependent Variable Individual Individual Individual productivity productivity productivity

Independent variables Step 1: Control variables Men (reference group: women)

Beta

Model 2 Beta

Change statistics

Model 3 Beta

Intrinsic Intrinsic motivation motivation Model 1

ΔR2 in %

Beta

Model 2 Beta

ΔR2 16.0 −.158

.075

.053

Children living at home (reference group: no children living at home) Age of the youngest child 6 18 (reference group: age of the youngest child 0 5)

−.251

−.301

−.346

.199

.247

.197

.173

Age of the youngest child > 18 (reference group: age of the youngest child 0 5)

−.180

−.240

−.337

.502

.536

.082

.129

.115

.016

.077

Number of children Autonomy

−.118 .214*

−.153 .210*

−.212 .215*

.302 −.041

.327 −.027

Age-centered Age2 (first polynomial term)

−.699* .006

−.678* −.015

−.640* .011

−.206 −.160

−.208 −.148

.737*

.736*

.737*

−.027

−.010

Overtime

Age3 (second polynomial term)

.290*

15

−.148

.322*

ΔR2 in % ΔR2 8.1

−.174

.311*

Change statistics Finding the Optimal Mix between Telework and Office Hours

Model 1

Dependent Variable

16

Table 4. Continued.

Individual Individual Individual productivity productivity productivity Model 1

Model 2

2

.038

.080

−.244*

−.276*

N = 111. *p < .05.

Model 1

16.0 1.891

20.4 2.070

.180* 23.3 2.243

Change statistics

Model 2 ΔR2 2.1 −.233 .178

ΔR2 2.9

Step 3: mediator

F

Intrinsic Intrinsic motivation motivation

ΔR2 4.3

Telework intensity

Intrinsic motivation R2 in %

Change statistics

Model 3

Step 2: independent variables Telework intensity (polynomial term)

Dependent Variable

8.1 .871

10.2 .916

Niels Hoornweg et al.

Dependent Variable

Finding the Optimal Mix between Telework and Office Hours

17

Figure 1: Individual productivity (compound variable) plotted against telework intensity (in hours). Moreover, intrinsic motivation was a significant predictor in the individual productivity equation (β = .18, p < .05), herewith confirming Hypothesis 3. Table 4 shows the results of the regression analysis predicting intrinsic motivation (Model 2). In contrast to Hypothesis 2a and 2b, neither the telework intensity variable, nor the polynomial telework intensity term had a significant effect on intrinsic motivation. These findings also imply that Hypothesis 4, assuming a mediating effect for intrinsic motivation, was not corroborated. In fact, after including intrinsic motivation in the individual productivity model, the effect of the two telework intensity variables on individual productivity did not attenuate and the polynomial term of telework intensity remained significant. The first ANOVA analysis for individual productivity (Table 5) shows the differences across the four groups representing various telework intensity/number of weekly office hours to be significant (F, (1, 94) = 5.60, p < .05). The effect size of the “interaction effect,” based on eta squared, was mediocre (.06) (Hair et al., 2010). This implies that Hypothesis 5a, stating that the effect of telework intensity on individual productivity is contingent on the number of weekly office hours, was confirmed by our data. Importantly, as we controlled the initial analyses with job category and weekly working hours, across group differences were not caused by employees working part-time versus full-time. Closer mean comparisons (Table 6) reveal significant differences in the reported individual productivity levels between the four groups. The difference between Group 3 (high telework intensity/low number of weekly office hours) (M = 3.50, SD = .43) versus Group 4 (high telework intensity/high number of weekly office hours) (M = 5.10, SD = .70) was most striking, with those characterized by high numbers of weekly office hours being more productive, keeping constant for high telework intensity. The differences in productivity mean scores between other groups were smaller, for example the differences between Group 1 (low telework intensity/low number of weekly office hours) (M = 3.91, SD = .38) versus Group 2

18

Niels Hoornweg et al.

Table 5: Source table between subjects ANOVA individual productivity.

Sex Children living at home

2.669 .950

1 2.669 2.666 .106 2 .475 .475 .624

Age of the youngest child

5.729

2 2.865 2.861 .062

Number of children (covariate) Autonomy (covariate)

2.885 4.153

1 2.885 2.882 .093 1 4.153 4.148 .044*

Age-centered (covariate) Age2 first polynomial term (covariate)

4.358 .598

1 4.358 4.353 .040* 1 .598 .597 .441

Age3 second polynomial term (covariate)

8.962

1 8.962 8.951 .004*

Intrinsic motivation Overtime

2.635 .359

1 2.635 2.632 .108 1 .359 .358 .551

Telework intensity categorical Office hours categorical

.375 6.770

1 .375 .375 .542 1 6.770 6.762 .011*

Telework intensity categorical × Office hours categorical Error

5.577

1 5.577 5.570 .020*

94.110

MS

P

SS

Total

DF

F

Source

94 1.001

1633.688 110

N = 110. *p < .05.

(low telework intensity/high number of weekly office hours) (M = 4.20, SD = .35). Also in this comparison, high numbers of weekly office hours can be associated with higher levels of reported individual productivity. A significant difference was also revealed between Group 4 (high telework intensity/high number of weekly office hours) (M = 5.10, SD = .70) and Group 2 (low telework intensity/high number of weekly office hours) (M = 4.20, SD = .35), this comparison indicating a positive association between high telework intensity and individual productivity (under the condition of a high number of office hours). In the comparison between Group 4 (high telework intensity/high number of weekly office hours) (M = 5.10, SD = .70) and Group 1 (low telework intensity/low number of weekly office hours) (M = 3.91, SD = .38), a high telework intensity was shown to be accompanied by a higher productivity level, when also weekly office hours were relatively high. Figure 2 shows a graphical representation of the “interaction” between telework intensity and office hours and individual productivity. In conclusion, in a second ANOVA analysis (Table 7), it was tested whether office hours moderated the relationship between telework intensity and intrinsic motivation. The results showed that the “interaction” between telework intensity

Finding the Optimal Mix between Telework and Office Hours

19

Table 6: Mean scores and differences interaction categories on individual productivity. Telework Hours

Office Hours

Mean

Standard Error

8 hours or less

32 or less (group 1) More than 32 hours (group 2)

3.911 4.166

.384 .352

More than 8 hours

32 or less (group 3)

3.454

.434

More than 32 hours (group 4)

5.094

.654

Compared Groups

Mean Differences

Group 1 group 2

.255

Group 1 group 3

.457

Group 1 group 4 Group 2 group 3

1.183* .712

Group 2 group 4 Group 3 group 4

.928* 1.640*

N = 110. *p < .05.

Figure 2: Interaction effect between office hours and telework intensity on Individual productivity. and the number of office hours was not significant (F, (1.95) = 1.90, p > .05). The effect size of the interaction effect, based on the eta squared, was very small (.02). Also in-depth mean comparisons (Table 8) shows no significant differences in intrinsic motivation between the four distinguished groups reflecting different

20

Niels Hoornweg et al.

Table 7: Source table between subjects ANOVA intrinsic motivation. Source

SS

Sex Children living at home

.028 .072

1 2

.028 .036

Age of the youngest child

.544

2

.272 1.236 .295

Number of children (covariate) Autonomy (covariate)

.520 .032

1 1

.520 2.361 .128 .032 .144 .705

Age-centered (covariate) Age first polynomial term (covariate)

.138 .262

1 1

.138 .629 .430 .262 1.188 .278

Age second polynomial term (covariate)

.011

1

.011

.050 .823

Overtime Telework intensity categorical

.061 .061

1 1

.061 .061

.276 .600 .277 .600

Office hours categorical Telework intensity categorical × Office hours categorical

.131 .418

1 1

.131 .593 .443 .418 1.899 .171

Error Total

DF MS

F

P

.128 .722 .163 .850

20.920 95 .220 1810.60 110

N = 110.

combinations of weekly telework and office hours intensities. This implies that Hypothesis 5b, stating that the effect of telework intensity on intrinsic motivation is contingent on the number of weekly office hours, was not supported by the data.

Conclusions and Discussion The Curvilinear Relationship between Telework Intensity and Individual Productivity First, in contrast to previous evidence in the telework literature (Bailey & Kurland, 2002; Gajendran & Harrison, 2007; Hartman et al., 1991; Shin et al., 2000) in case of low telework intensity (i.e., 8 hours or less per week), the relationship between telework intensity and individual productivity was non-significant, although a positive trend was shown. In line with our hypothesis, however, in case of a relatively high telework intensity (i.e., more than 8 hours per week), the relationship with individual productivity was significant and negative. Hence, to some extent, evidence was found for the course of the relationship between telework intensity and individual productivity being curvilinear, characterized by a slight (but non-significant) ascend trend and a significant descend effect. These combined findings contribute to

Finding the Optimal Mix between Telework and Office Hours

21

Table 8: Mean scores and differences interaction categories on intrinsic motivation. Telework Hours

Office Hours

Mean

Standard Error

8 hours or less

32 or less (group 1) More than 32 hours (group 2)

3.916 3.973

.180 .165

More than 8 hours

32 or less (group 3)

4.009

.204

More than 32 hours (group 4)

3.690

.305

Compared Groups

Mean Differences

Group 1 group 2 Group 1 group 3

.057 .093

Group 1 group 4 Group 2 group 3

.226 .036

Group 2 group 4

.283

Group 3 group 4

.319

N = 110.

the scientific and societal debates concerning the importance of telework intensity and its outcomes (Bailey & Kurland, 2002; Gajendran & Harrison, 2007; Peters & Wildenbeest, 2010), stressing that telework intensity needs to be taken into account in research in the field, instead of only comparing teleworkers with non-teleworkers. More specifically, the finding that relatively low telework intensity had no effect on individual productivity, while relatively high telework intensity had a negative effect on productivity nuanced the mainstream telework literature implicitly or explicitly building on the JD-R Model in which telework is commonly regarded as a job resource which can be associated with positive work outcomes (Di Martino & Wirth, 1990; Dubrin, 1991; Gajendran & Harrison, 2007; Hartman et al., 1991), especially when it is perceived as such by employees (Peters et al., 2014), or when access to telework is part of a synergetic HRM-bundle (Peters et al., 2013). In light of this study’s findings, we may conclude that low telework intensity does not automatically function as a job resource as defined by Bakker and Demerouti (2007), that is, not when it comes to individual productivity, and that a high telework intensity rather functions as a demand.

The Mediating Role of Intrinsic Motivation This conclusion was further strengthened by the lack of evidence in this study for the mediating role of intrinsic motivation in the relationship between telework intensity and individual productivity characterizing the function of job resources (Hackman & Oldham, 1976). Although we found a direct positive relationship

22

Niels Hoornweg et al.

between intrinsic motivation and individual productivity (indicating that the higher an employee is intrinsically motivated, the higher his or her productivity), our analyses did not support the assumption that telework intensity can be associated with higher levels of intrinsic motivation, let alone that intrinsic motivation mediates the relationship between telework intensity and individual productivity. These findings contribute to the debate concerning the mechanisms underlying the relationship between telework intensity and individual productivity (Bailey & Kurland, 2002; Feldman & Gainey, 1997; Kelly et al., 2008; Morganson et al., 2010). Based on our findings, we may rather conclude that in case of low intensity, telework can be viewed a “neutral HRM-tool” when it comes to individual productivity, as it does not significantly affect how individuals perceive their individual productivity. Moreover under higher telework intensities, telework can rather be viewed a challenge (cf. Van den Broeck et al., 2010), since this has the potential to affect individual productivity, which can be related to the next discussion point.

The Moderating Role of Weekly Office Hours Our findings also contribute to the professional isolation literature by confirming that working away from the office more frequently, in this study represented by a relatively high telework intensity, could function as a job demand (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007), or job challenge (Van den Broeck et al., 2010), possibly resulting in professional isolation, herewith negatively affecting work outcomes (Bailey & Kurland, 2002; Caldwell, 1997; Di Martino & Wirth, 1990; Golden et al., 2008), such as individual productivity. According to the JD-R model, a job demand does not necessarily influence intrinsic motivation. Rather, a job demand can turn into a stressor and can cause strain, which might explain why a high telework intensity resulted in lower individual productivity, also when controlled for intrinsic motivation. Importantly, our findings also showed that the consequences of telework intensity are contingent on how telework behavior is accompanied by weekly office hours, possibly indicating higher quality of social interactions at work (cf. Neufeld & Fang, 2005). When simultaneously taking into account both telework intensity and the number of weekly office hours, our analyses indicated that the group of teleworkers with a relatively high telework intensity (i.e., more than 8 hours per week) combined with a relatively large number of office hours (i.e., more than 32 hours per week) reported the highest level of individual productivity. This finding shows that high telework intensity can be viewed as an HRM-tool which has the potential to foster individual productivity, as long as it is combined with a relatively large number of office hours. This finding further refines the previous findings on the relationship between telework intensity and individual productivity, where the number of office hours was not taken into account. However, like in previous studies (Peters, Den Dulk, & Van der Lippe, 2009), it seems that telework in these situations runs parallel with “working overtime” at home. This may also confirm the outcomes in the literature that teleworking fosters work intensification and longer working hours, either spent teleworking or working at the office (Kelliher & Anderson, 2010). When

Finding the Optimal Mix between Telework and Office Hours

23

interpreting the outcomes, however, we have to keep in mind that our study measured self-reported individual productivity using a construct comprising four elements (i.e., effectiveness, efficiency, productivity, and quality). This measure, however, does not indicate whether the individuals’ total productivity (productiveness), or the individuals’ hourly productivity (efficiency) was higher, or both. To some extent, however, our study supports the professional isolation literature which argues that employees’ presence at the central office, besides teleworking, reduces or eliminates the effect of professional isolation regarding individual productivity which is often associated with full-time telework (Di Martino & Wirth, 1990; Golden et al., 2008), and could even have the consequence that employees perform better. However, our findings are not fully in line with what we expected based on the professional isolation literature (Bailey & Kurland, 2002; Caldwell, 1997; Di Martino & Wirth, 1990), in which it has been argued that a high telework intensity combined with frequent office visits would positively influence employees’ intrinsic motivation. Also due to the lack of significant differences in intrinsic motivation of the four telework categories distinguished in this study (each varying in their combination of telework intensity and numbers of office hours), the relationship between telework intensity, office hours, and intrinsic motivation could not be supported by the data. This demands further research. In conclusion, our analyses indicated that for substantial teleworkers in our banking organization, commuting between home and work may not always be substantially eliminated, given the combination of high telework intensity and frequent office hours. In any case, frequent office visits were shown an important factor in achieving individual productivity. With this outcome, it is also stressed that the terms “teleworking” and “telecommuting” should not be used interchangeable, but that its use should be dependent upon the effect telework has on employees’ commuting behaviors.

Limitations and Research First, our study was characterized by a relatively small sample size (N = 111) derived from one research site. Given the study’s limited statistical power, the conclusions should be adopted with some caution. Although the sample size was appropriate (it covered nearly 30% of the total population of the case organization), further research including and comparing more organizations is needed to get more insight into the results’ generalizability. A second limitation stems from the operationalization of the concepts in this study. The respondents were asked to report their perceptions regarding the model variables. Although perceptions can be viewed a reliable and valid source of information which are commonly used (cf. Baker et al., 2006), we should be cautious as judgments of teleworkers about their own productivity may be biased. Moreover, the productivity measure used does not indicate whether it relates to individuals’ total productivity or to hourly productivity. However, Baruch (1996) argued that it is hard to obtain objective data and to relate objective data to telework, since other

24

Niels Hoornweg et al.

factors might play a role as well. Future research might need to take both more objective or subjective productivity and intrinsic motivation measures into account, for example, by using estimations based on coworkers’, managers’, and clients’ perceptions (Bakker et al., 2004) or concrete output measures. A third limitation stems from our study’s focus, intentionally excluding nonteleworkers. Future research could study differences in total and hourly productivity of teleworkers and non-teleworkers. A fourth limitation is that our study only focused on a bank environment. Future research could check whether our findings also apply to other occupational settings. Especially given the fact that this study found no support for the central role of intrinsic motivation as an underlying mechanism, despite the fact that the telework literature repeatedly mentions intrinsic motivation as an important factor in the relationship between telework intensity and individual productivity, future empirical work in this field is needed. In fact, rather than focusing on the “motivational process” in the JD-R model, future telework studies could also focus on the “health impairment process,” as telework can be accompanied by a loss of resources (collegial and managerial support) (Peters et al., 2014), or by an increase of stressors (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Sixth, this study did not take the use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) into account. As this study shows that telework at a high intensity can be beneficial for productivity, more empirical work is needed to overcome the paradox that frequent physical presence is in contradiction with the purpose of telework and to shed more light on how ICT can help to improve and maintain connectivity and high quality work relationships in distributed working (cf. Ten Brummelhuis, Bakker, Hetland, & Keulemans, 2012). Seventh, although New Ways of Working, including teleworking, may be used to improve productivity, it is also believed to enable employees to better balance work and non-work activities (Peters, 2011). However, our study presented some indications that the anticipated productivity gains were only realized when teleworking was accompanied by longer working hours. It is not clear, however, whether this was intended by employees or not and how this affected their work-life balance. As teleworking practices may be accompanied by an organizational culture pressuring employees to be constantly available for work (cf. Derks, Van Duin, Tims, & Bakker, 2014), future research could use boundary theory (Ashforth, Kreiner, & Fugate, 2000) to give more insight into how this may possibly enhance work-life conflict, may be impacting productivity in the longer run (cf. Rothbard, Philips, & Dumus, 2005).

Policy Recommendations This study shows that low telework intensity does not significantly affect individual productivity, neither positively, nor negatively. Since low teleworking practices were not shown to affect productivity negatively, it can be used to achieve other HRM goals, for example, work-life balance. The negative relationship between high

Finding the Optimal Mix between Telework and Office Hours

25

telework intensity and individual productivity may also explain why direct supervisors prefer to allow employees to telework only for a limited amount of time (Peters & Wildenbeest, 2010). However, this study also shows that a high telework intensity can be fruitful in terms of productivity when it is accompanied with frequent office hours. As this may come down to working longer hours, the optimal mix or constellation may depend on the number of office hours or alternative ways to maintain the quality of social interactions (cf. Neufeld & Fang, 2005). A policy recommendation for HRM practitioners and managers might be that it is more beneficial for an organization to allow employees to telework substantially, but under clear conditions. On the one hand, in case of a high telework intensity, organizations should be alert to the damaging effect of professional isolation, by instructing employees to be physically present regularly as well. On the other hand, however, organizations should be aware of the risks of organizational cultures pressuring employees to be constantly available for work (cf. Derks et al., 2014), meaning that boundaries between work and non-work become too blurred (Ashforth et al., 2000), leading to longer working hours which come at the expense of well-being and long-term productivity (cf. Rothbard et al., 2005). The importance of finding the best mix between telework intensity and the number of (weekly) office hours shows that neither telework, nor abolishing telework (like in the case of Yahoo!) should be considered best practices when it comes to enhancing individual productivity. That is to say, telework should be carefully managed, monitored, facilitated, and adapted. Telework should be viewed an HRM-tool which is dependent on the context in which it is implemented, and HR practitioners and organizations should create a proper policy to support this aspect of “New Ways of Working.”

References Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., & Fugate, M. (2000). All in a day’s work: Boundaries and micro role transitions. Academy of Management Review, 25(3), 472 491. Bailey, D. E., & Kurland, N. B. (2002). A review of telework research: Findings, new directions, and lessons for the study of modern work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 383 400. Baker, E., Avery, G. C., & Crawford, J. (2006). Satisfaction and perceived productivity when professionals work from home. Research and Practice in Human Resource Management, 15(1), 37 62. Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309 328. Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Verbeke, W. (2004). Using the job demands-resources model to predict burnout and performance. Human Resource Management, 43, 83 104. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). Moderator-mediator variables distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173 1182.

26

Niels Hoornweg et al.

Baruch, Y. (1996). Self-performance appraisal A case of congruency. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 11(6), 50 65. Caillier, J. G. (2012). The impact of teleworking on work motivation in a U.S. federal government agency. American Review of Public Administration, 42(4), 461 480. Caldwell, B. S. (1997). Sociotechnical factors affecting communication and isolation in complex environments. In M. Mouloua & J. J. Koonce (Eds.), Human automation interactions: Research and practice (pp. 298 304). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demandsresources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499 512. Derks, D., Van Duin, D., Tims, M., & Bakker, A. B. (2014). Smartphone use and workhome interference: The moderating role of social norms and employee work engagement. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 88, 155 177. Di Martino, V., & Wirth, L. (1990). Telework: A new way of working and living. International Labour Review, 129(5), 529 554. 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. Feldman, D. C., & Gainey, T. W. (1997). Patterns of telecommuting and their consequences: Framing the research agenda. Human Resource Management Review, 7(4), 369 388. 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 1541. 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 1421. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior Human Performance, 16, 250 279. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Hartman, R. I., Stoner, C. R., & Arora, R. (1991). An investigation of selected variables affecting telecommuting productivity and satisfaction. Journal of Business and Psychology, 6(2), 207 225. Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285 308. Kelliher, C., & Anderson, D. (2010). Doing more with less? Flexible working practices and the intensification of work. Human Relations, 63, 83–106. Kelly, E. L., Kossek, E. E., Hammer, L. B., Durham, M., Bray, J., Chermack, K., … Kaskubar, D. (2008). Getting there from here: Research on the effects of work-family initiatives on workfamily conflict and business outcomes. Academy of Management, 2, 305 349. Konradt, U., Schmook, R., & Ma¨lecke, M. (2000). Impacts of telework on individuals, organizations and families A critical review. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 15, 63 99. Mindmetre. (2012). Flexibel werken leidt tot hogere productiviteit [Flexible working leads to higher productivity]. Retrieved from http://www.vkbanen.nl/ Morganson, V. J., Major, D. A., Oborn, K. L., Verive, J. M., & Heelan, M. P. (2010). Comparing telework locations and traditional work arrangements, differences in work-life

Finding the Optimal Mix between Telework and Office Hours

27

balance support, job satisfaction and inclusion. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25(6), 578 595. Neufeld, D. J., & Fang, Y. (2005). Individual, social and situational determinant of telecommuter productivity. Information & Management, 42, 1037 1049. Nilles, J. M. (1998). Managing telework. Strategies for managing the virtual workforce. New York, NY: Wiley. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company. New York, USA: Oxford University Press. Olson, M. H. (1989). Work at home for computer professionals: Current attitudes and future prospects. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, 7(4), 317 338. Peters, P. (2011). Flexible working time arrangements: Exchange of good practice. Discussion Paper, The Netherlands. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/tools/ good-practices/index_en.htm Peters, P., & Batenburg, R. (2014). Telework adoption and formalization in organizations from a knowledge transfer perspective. International Journal of Work Innovation, 1(2 3). Peters, P., & Batenburg, R. (2015). Telework adoption and formalization in organizations from a knowledge transfer perspective. International Journal of Work Innovation, 1, 251– 270. Peters, P., Bleijenbergh, I., & Oldenkamp, E. (2009). The telework adoption process in a Dutch and French subsidiary of the same ICT-multinational: How national culture and management principles affects the success of telework programs. Journal of eWorking, 3(1), 1 16. Peters, P., Den Dulk, L., & Van der Lippe, T. (2009). The effects of time-spatial flexibility and new working conditions on employees’ work-life balance: The Dutch case. Community, Work & Family, 12(3), 279 298. Peters, P., Kraan, K., & Van Echtelt, P. (2013). Floreren onder condities van Het Nieuwe Werken: Minder burn-out, meer toewijding? Tijdschrift voor Arbeidsvraagstukken, 3(29), 304 321. Peters, P., Poutsma, F., Van der Heijden, B. I. J. M., Bakker, A., & De Bruin, T. (2014). Enjoying new ways to work: An HRM process approach to study flow. Human Resource Management, 53(2), 271 290. Peters, P., & Van der Lippe, T. (2007). The time-pressure reducing potential of telehomeworking: The Dutch case. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(3), 430 447. Peters, P., & Wildenbeest, M. (2010). Telewerken als hulpbron? ‘Flow’ en uitputting onder twee telewerkcategoriee¨n vergeleken. Gedrag & Organisatie, 23(2), 97 117. Rothbard, N. P., Philips, K. W., & Dumus, T. L. (2005). Managing multiple roles: Workfamily policies and individuals’ desire for segmentation. Organizational Science, 16, 243 258. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54 67. Sardeshmukh, S. R., Sharma, D., & Golden, T. D. (2012). Impact of telework on exhaustion and job engagement: A job demands and job resources model. New Technology, Work and Employment, 27, 193 207. Shin, B., Sheng, O. R. L., & Higa, K. (2000). Telework: Existing research and future directions. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 10(2), 85 101. Siegrist, J. (1996). Adverse health effects of high effort-low reward conditions. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1, 27 41.

28

Niels Hoornweg et al.

Slijkhuis, J. M. (2012). A structured approach to need for structure at work. Dissertation, Groningen University. Retrieved from https://www.rug.nl/research/portal/publications/ pub(08debcfa-ba7a-42c1-9139-8f7d9702976f).html Spector, P. E. (2008). Industrial and organizational psychology. Research and practice (5th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Staples, D. D., Hulland, J. S., & Higgins, C. A. (1999). A self-efficacy theory explanation for the management of remote workers in virtual organizations. Organization Science, 10(6), 758 776. Ten Brummelhuis, L. L., Bakker, A. B., Hetland, J., & Keulemans, L. (2012). Do new ways of working foster work engagement? Psicothema, 24, 113 120. Van den Broeck, A., De Cuyper, N., De Witte, H., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2010). Not all job demands are equal: Differentiating job hindrances and job challenges in the Job DemandsResources model. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19, 735 759. Varma, K. V., Ho, C. I., Stanek, D. M., & Mokhtarian, P. L. (1998). Duration and frequency of telecenter use: Once a telecommuter, always a telecommuter? Transportation Research Part C, 6, 47 68. Virick, M., DaSilva, N., & Arrington, K. (2010). Moderators of the curvilinear relation between extent of telecommuting and job and life satisfaction: The role of performance outcome orientation and worker type. Human Relations, 63(1), 137 154. Warr, P. B., Cook, J. C., & Wall, P. B. (1979). Scales for the measurement of some attitudes and aspects of psychological well-being. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 52(2), 129 148. Webwereld. (2013). Baas Yahoo! Verbiedt thuiswerken. Retrieved from http://webwereld.nl/ mobility/59488-baas-yahoo-verbiedt-thuiswerken

Chapter 2

Boundaryless Work, Psychological Detachment and Sleep: Does Working ‘Anytime Anywhere’ Equal Employees Are ‘Always on’? Christin Mellner, Go¨ran Kecklund, Michiel Kompier, Amir Sariaslan and Gunnar Aronsson

Abstract Employees have gained increased flexibility in organizing their work in time and space, that is boundaryless work. Managing the boundaries between work and personal life would seem to be crucial if one is to psychologically detach from work during leisure in order to unwind and get sufficient sleep. Drawing from a sample of Swedish professional workers (N = 3,846), a theoretical model was proposed testing the inter-relationships between boundaryless work in time and space, weekly work hours, psychological detachment, sleeping problems and sleep duration using a structural equation modelling (SEM) analysis. Findings showed that working boundlessly in time, that is spread out during the working day and week, was directly associated with both long weekly work hours and lack of psychological detachment. In contrast, working boundlessly in space, that is at several different places, was inversely associated with weekly work hours and had no association with psychological detachment. Psychological detachment, in turn, was directly associated with sleeping problems and inversely associated with sleep duration. Sleeping problems were inversely associated with sleep duration. Employees with long weekly work hours had a low degree of sleeping problems. There was also no association between long weekly work hours and sleep duration. These findings contradict earlier research, however, we interpret these findings as that if one works a great deal but is able to mentally detach from work-related feelings and thoughts

New Ways of Working Practices: Antecedents and Outcomes Advanced Series in Management, Volume 16, 29 47 Copyright r 2017 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1877-6361/doi:10.1108/S1877-636120160000016003

30

Christin Mellner et al.

during free time, then sleep will not be hampered because perseverative cognitions associated with prolonged biological activation will have been interrupted. As such, psychological detachment can be regarded as the mechanism that mediates the relationships between working ‘anytime’ and long weekly work hours, and sleep. It was concluded working boundlessly in time increases the likelihood for long weekly work hours and lack of psychological detachment. Hence, employees working ‘anytime all the time’ run the risk of ‘always being on’ resulting in disturbed sleep. Keywords: Flexibility; new ways of work; professionals; recovery; switching off

Introduction During recent decades, profound changes have taken place in working life as global competition has increased along with the need to react quickly to changing markets. Especially the rapid development of boundary-transcending information and communication technologies (ICTs) has led to more flexible work arrangements, where employees are increasingly being empowered in relation to their autonomy and responsibly for organizing their work. This phenomenon has been referred to as, for example boundaryless work (Allvin, Aronsson, Hagstro¨m, Johansson, & Lundberg, 2011) and ‘New Working Conditions’ (Peters, Den Dulk, & Van der Lippe, 2009). Thus, owing to the growing use of ICTs and flexible work arrangements, an increasing number of employees can perform their work without being bound by time and space, that is ‘anytime anywhere’ (Allvin, Mellner, Movitz, & Aronsson, 2013; Boswell & Olson-Buchanan, 2007; Fenner & Renn, 2010; Grant, Wallace, & Spurgeon, 2013; Madden & Jones, 2008; Major & Germano, 2006). This also allows employees to stay connected to customers and co-workers and be available for employers around the clock (Boswell & Olson-Buchanan, 2007; Wajcman, Bittman, & Brown, 2008), resulting in high expectations regarding constant availability (Major & Germano, 2006; Middleton & Cukier, 2006). Taken together, these developments mark a fundamental shift in the boundaries between work and personal life (Duxbury & Smart, 2011; Madden & Jones, 2008), from the traditional, external regulation of both fixed work hours and a fixed workplace, with clear demarcations between work and non-work, towards a more internal, individual regulation of these boundaries. We might expect that possibilities to control one’s work and personal life situation would increase with decreasing external regulation, for instance in terms of scheduling work at times and places that accord with individual preferences and circumstances. On the other hand, the increased flexibility and discretionary power given to individuals to organize their own work, together with rapid technological developments, have also been associated with an intensification of time demands and ‘time greediness’ (Fleetwood, 2007; Lewis & Smithson, 2006; Van Echtelt, Glebbeek, Wielers, & Lindenberg, 2007), described in terms of ‘flexible hours, but boundless time demands’ (Ellingsaeter, 2003, p. 436) and longer

Always on

31

working days (Grant & Kiesler, 2001). Long working hours and overtime work are indeed common phenomena in today’s industrialized countries (Jacobs & Gerson, 2004; Parent-Thirion, Macias, Hurley, & Vermeylen, 2007).

Theoretical Framework Excessive overtime work poses a serious health risk (Bannai & Tamakoshi, 2014; Caruso, 2014). It has been suggested that the relationships between long working hours and various negative health and fatigue outcomes may be mediated by both poorer sleep quality and shorter sleep duration (Dahlgren, Kecklund, & A˚kerstedt, 2006; Van Dongen, 2006). Sleep complaints are an increasing problem in the working population (Metlaine, Leger, & Choudat, 2005) and are associated with various negative health outcomes. For instance, short sleep duration has been associated with diabetes, cardiovascular disease and hypertension (Ayas et al., 2003), weaker immune responses (Irwin et al., 1996) and poor self-rated health (Steptoe, Peacey, & Valle, 2006) as well as with higher all-cause mortality and morbidity (Basner et al., 2007; Henslop, Smith, Metcalfe, Macleod, & Hart, 2002). Disturbed sleep negatively affects the potential for sufficient recovery (van der Hulst, 2003). Normally, recovery from effort expenditure during work (Meijman & Mulder, 1998) occurs during off-work hours, weekends and holidays (de Bloom, Kompier, & Geurts, et al., 2009). However, working long hours reduces the time for recovery, and instead effort investment is prolonged. If the employee has not fully recovered from the previous working day, additional effort will be needed to perform adequately on the next working day. As such, working long hours hinders sufficient recovery between work shifts, resulting in increased intensity of negative load reactions (Geurts & Sonnentag, 2006). According to stress-recovery theory (Geurts & Sonnentag, 2006), integration or the merging of work and free time due to blurred boundaries between work and non-work activities may interfere with unwinding and sleep. The underlying mechanism seems to involve lack of relaxation due to inability to ‘switch off’ thoughts of work during non-work time, that is poor psychological detachment (Kompier, Taris, & van Veldhoven, 2012). Psychological detachment has been suggested to facilitate recovery (Sonnentag & Bayer, 2005) and it refers to not being occupied with work-related feelings and thoughts during non-work time (Sonnentag, Binnewies, & Mojza, 2010). In line with the perseverative cognition hypothesis (Brosschot, Gerin, & Thayer, 2006; Brosschot, Pieper, & Thayer, 2005), we could argue that mentally disconnecting from work-related feelings and thoughts during leisure would prevent prolonged physiological activation. As such, psychological detachment would provide opportunities to relax and unwind from the effort expended during work, and negative load reactions from one working day spilling over into the next would decrease (Geurts & Sonnentag, 2006), thus promoting sufficient rest and recovery (Sonnentag & Bayer, 2005; Sonnentag, Binnewies, et al., 2010).

32

Christin Mellner et al.

This line of reasoning is supported by previous studies showing that job stressors, in particular workload, predict lack of psychological detachment, which in turn predicts high strain levels, poor well-being and various health-related outcomes (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2015) as well as an increase in exhaustion (So¨derstro¨m, Jeding, Ekstedt, Perski, & A˚kerstedt, 2012; Sonnentag, Arbeus, Mahn, & Fritz, 2014; Sonnentag, Kuttler, & Fritz, 2010).

Aim and Hypotheses The aim of the present study was to test a theoretical model of the inter-relationships between boundaryless work in time and space, weekly work hours, psychological detachment and sleeping problems as well as sleep duration with a focus on the specific role of each factor. This was done by testing a set of hypotheses based on the overarching research question: Does boundaryless work in terms of the choices people make, or have to make, regarding when, where and how much to work entail working ‘anytime anywhere’, and is this associated to problems with psychological detachment and disturbed sleep? Five hypotheses were formulated: Hypothesis 1. First, if one is working both during and outside standard work hours, that is ‘anytime’ or spread out in time over the working day and the working week, we would expect work to also be performed outside the workplace, that is working ‘anywhere’. Hence, we expect working ‘anytime’ to be associated with working ‘anywhere’. Hypothesis 2. Furthermore, if one is working both during and outside standard work hours this implies long weekly work hours. As such, we expect working ‘anytime’ to increase the likelihood of long weekly work hours. Working ‘anywhere’, on the other hand, does not necessarily imply working longer, but may only indicate that work is performed at various places. Hypothesis 3. If one is working beyond both standard work hours and the workplace, thus in both time and space, that is working anytime anywhere, we expect this to be associated with lack of psychological detachment, as work can then be said to accompany the employee all the time everywhere. Hypothesis 4. In a similar vein, because previous studies have suggested that relationships between long work hours and various negative health and fatigue outcomes may be mediated by lack of recovery (van der Hulst, 2003), where the underlying mechanism seems to be an inability to ‘switch off’ thoughts of work during non-work time (Kompier et al., 2012), we expect long weekly work hours to be associated with lack of psychological detachment.

Always on

33

Hypothesis 5. Finally, because being occupied with work-related thoughts and feelings during leisure time for instance in the evening before going to sleep, that is perseverative cognitions (Brosschot, Gerin, et al., 2006; Brosschot, Pieper, et al., 2005) prevents opportunities to relax and calm down (Meijman & Mulder, 1998), we expect not being able to psychologically detach from work during leisure to be associated with both a high degree of sleeping problems and short sleep duration.

Methodology Participants In 2013, a web-based questionnaire was distributed to a total of 9,432 gainfully employed professionals working in one of four large organizations, two in the public sector and two in the private sector. The final sample consisted of 3,846 individuals (response rate 42%). The participants were: (1) ministers working in the Swedish church (n = 1,350); (2) public school principals (n = 614); (3) white-collar professionals working in the private sector within a large variety of different occupations and organizations, for instance within the media, consultancy, marketing, engineering, IT, architecture, accountancy, journalism, sales, finance, law, etc. (n = 882); (4) all employees at two different departments sales and research and development at a large Swedish telecom company acting on the global market (n = 1,035). The ministers, school principals and white-collar professionals were recruited to participate in the study through their union membership. As the employees at the telecom company were directly recruited through their employer, there was no information on their union membership. However, in Sweden, the majority of all professionals (73%) are unionized. Of these, 84% of professionals in the public sector and 67% of professionals in the private sector are unionized (Kjellberg, 2014). In the study sample, 62% were male and the mean age was 48 years. Approximately 80% were cohabiting, and 60% had children living in the household. The educational level in the sample was high, with 77% holding a university degree. Moreover, 97% had a permanent employment contract and 97% worked full-time with contracted work hours of, on average, 39 hours a week (SD 2.85). Measures Work in Time and Space When and where one works during a normal working week, where several time points and places could be stated, was measured with a five-point response scale (Allvin et al., 2013) (1 Not at all/Seldom; 5 Everyday during the past 3 months). For weekends a six-point scale was used (1 Not at all/Seldom; 6 More or less every Saturday and Sunday during the past 3 months). The response alternatives for items covering when one perform work were: weekdays 8 am to 5 pm (referred to as standard work hours); weeknights; and weekends.

34

Christin Mellner et al.

The items covering where one performs work had the response alternatives: at a fixed workplace; at different workplaces belonging to the employer; at clients’/ customers’ premises; while commuting, that is on a bus, train or subway; during business travels; from home; and elsewhere. Weekly Work Hours The definition of weekly work hours was the self-reported total number of weekly work hours including both non-discretionary hours, that is those required by contract or employment agreement, and discretionary hours, that is those put in by employees on their own initiative. Hence, number of work hours was measured using the following open-ended question: ‘How many hours have you worked a week, on average, during the past month?’ Psychological Detachment Problems detaching from work during leisure were measured using the Recovery Experience Questionnaire (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007). This is a four-item scale with a five-point response scale (1 Strongly disagree; 5 Strongly agree); an example item is: ‘When I come home I can easily relax and ‘switch off’ from work’. The item response values were totalled, and reversed when needed, to create an index ranging from 4 to 20, with high values indicating high levels of psychological detachment. In order to compare our values with those of the validated sub-scale of psychological detachment in the Recovery Experience Questionnaire (ibid.), we centred the index, which resulted in an index ranging from 1 to 5. High values indicate poor psychological detachment (Cronbach’s alpha 0.87). Sleeping Problems Insomnia-related sleeping problems were measured using three items from the Karolinska Sleep Questionnaire (Nordin, A˚kerstedt, & Nordin, 2013): ‘How often during the past 3 months have you experienced: (1) difficulties falling asleep, (2) repeated awakenings with difficulties returning to sleep and (3) waking up too early?’ Responses were made on a six-point scale (1 Not at all; 6 Almost every night/5 nights a week) (Cronbach’s alpha 0.78). Sleep Duration Sleep duration was measured using an open-ended question on how many hours, on average, one has slept each night before a working day during the past week. Personal Characteristics Data on age, gender, whether the individual was cohabiting and whether he/she had children living in the household were included as exogenous demographic variables. Statistical Analyses The data were analysed using the SPSS version 22 and MPlus. A structural equation modelling (SEM) analysis was conducted to test the patterns proposed in our

Always on

35

hypotheses using direct hypothesis tests involving correlations among latent variables with multiple indicators (Preacher, 2006). The model was tested including the six latent factors working anytime, working anywhere, weekly work hours, psychological detachment, sleeping problems and sleep duration. The estimation and their significant levels for each parameter were assessed. If indicated, adding correlations between error terms and putting constraints on parameters were done to improve the model. The analysis assessed the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) and the comparative fit index (CFI). The conventional cut-off values of these fit indices were used to assess model fit (i.e. RMSEA < .08, and TLI, CFI > .90 to indicate good fit). The standardized coefficients (SC) represent the effect sizes of the correlations, where an SC around 0.10 indicates a small effect, one around 0.30 indicates a medium effect and one above 0.50 indicates a strong effect (Kline, 1994 in Byrne, 2012).

Results Descriptives The means, standard deviations and correlations among the study variables are displayed in Table 1. Regarding both psychological detachment and sleeping problems, the mean scores in the present study sample were somewhat lower than in the validated sub-scale of psychological detachment in the Recovery Experience Questionnaire (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007), as well as in a recent Swedish populationbased study on sleeping problems (Mallon, Broman, A˚kerstedt, & Hetta, 2014), respectively. However, the mean score for sleep duration was slightly below the average sleep duration per night in the general population (ibid.). Regarding the correlations, there was a positive relation between performing work during standard work hours and at a fixed workplace whereas this work pattern was negatively related with performing work during other times and at other places. Working at other times and places other than what is typical of a traditional work organization were positively related with each other and each variable per se was positively related with long weekly work hours, thus lending initial support to Hypothesis 1 and 2. Both working during other times and at other places than traditional work organization was related with difficulties in psychologically detaching from work during leisure, giving initial support for Hypothesis 3. Furthermore, having long weekly work hours was related to difficulties with psychological detachment, as suggested by Hypothesis 4. Lending initial support to Hypothesis 5, there were significant correlations between poor psychological detachment, a high degree of sleeping problems and short sleep duration. Moreover, a high degree of sleeping problems was related to short sleep duration. In addition to our hypotheses, in particular working outside regular work hours, but also to some extent working outside a fixed workplace, was related to sleep problems. Performing work both during standard work hours and at other times, as

36

Variables 1. Weekdays 2. Weeknights 3. Weekends 4. Fixed workplace 5. Different places 6. Client/customers 7. Commuting locale 8. Business travels 9. Home 10. Elsewhere 11. Weekly work hours 12. Psychological detachment 13. Sleeping problems 14. Sleep duration 15. Age 16. Gender (1 = male) 17. Marital status (1 = cohabiting) 18. Children (1 = children living at home)

M

SD

1

4.78 2.67 2.72 4.47 2.31 1.73 1.77 1.40 2.45 1.34 43.35 2.84

0.49 1.11 1.57 0.87 1.34 1.13 1.29 0.73 1.26 0.75 6.07 0.93

1 −.13** 1 −.03 .35** 1 .18** −.04* .03 −.16** .39** .15** −.07** .11** .02** −.02 .26** .12** .02 .20** .11** −.11** .51** .34** −.08** .27** .13** .06** .43** .28** −.04* .31** .19**

7.45 6.71 49.01 1.39 1.20

3.15 0.86 9.42 0.49 0.40

−.02 .07** .04* −.04* −.07* −.09** −.06** .00 .02 −.06** −.05** −.01 −.10** .06** .04* −.01 .00 −.07** −.04* .03

1.41

0.49

.00

2

−.02

3

.01

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 −.10** 1 −.49** .18** 1 −.08** .26** .20** 1 −.16** .14** .23** .31** 1 −.11** .35** .14** .35** .18** 1 −.08** .31** .24** .27** .23** .37** 1 .03 .23** .04* .19** .21** .27** .16** −.02 .16** −.00 .11** .05** .25** .11**

−.02

.05** −.02 .03 .03 .02 −.04* .10** −.06** −.02 .14** .02 .04* −.03 .02 −.03 .04*

.02

−.02

.01 .07** −.00 .01 −.04* .02 .09** .07** .01 −.07** .08** .04* −.04* −.08** −.01 .04*

−.05** −.00

Christin Mellner et al.

Table 1: Mean scores, standard deviations and bivariate correlations among the study variables (N = 3,846).

Variables 11. Weekly work hours 12. Psychological detachment 13. Sleeping problems 14. Sleep duration 15. Age 16. Gender (1 = male) 17. Marital status (1 = cohabiting) 18. Children (1 = children living at home)

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

1 .28** 1 .11** .41** 1 −.14** −.21** −.36** 1 .10** −.02 .12** −.01 1 −.00 .11** .07** .08** −.02 1 −.02 −.04* .02 .00 −.05** .07** 1 .05** −.00

.06**

.04*

.28**

.04*

.25** 1

Variables 1 10 and 12 had range 1 5; variable 11 range 20 70; variable 13 range 3 18; variable 14 range 4 11; variable 15 range 25 67; variables 16 18 range 1 2. *p < .05; **p < .001 (one-tailed).

Always on 37

38

Christin Mellner et al.

well as working while commuting and from home were negatively related with sleep duration. There were also significant correlations between long weekly work hours, a high degree of sleeping problems and short sleep duration. As regards personal characteristics, being female was related with performing work at times and places other than what is typical of a traditional work organization, a high degree of sleeping problems and longer sleep duration. Age was positively related to these nontraditional work patterns. In addition, age was related with long weekly work hours and sleeping problems. Finally, having children living in the household was related with long weekly work hours, sleeping problems and longer sleep duration. SEM Analysis Figure 1 shows significant pathways of the final model and their standardized coefficients (betas). The proposed model showed adequate overall goodness of fit and the measures of model fitness were as follows: RMSEA .06; CFI .97; TLI .96. As Hypotheses 1 and 2 suggest, working ‘anytime’ was significantly associated with both working ‘anywhere’ (b = 0.41, p < .001) and having long weekly work hours (b = 2.57, p < .001), whereas working ‘anywhere’ was inversely associated with long weekly work hours (b = −1.28, p < .001). Hypothesis 3 was only partially Work anytime

0.22*** –0.01*** 2.57***

0.31***

Weekly work hours

0.04***

0.36***

Psychological detachment

Sleeping problems –0.32***

0.41***

–1.28***

–0.05***

0.06*

Female

Sleep duration

0.23***

Work anywhere

–0.05**

Age

0.30***

Cohabiting

0.71*** Children

0.21***

Figure 1: Significant paths (*p = < .05; **p = < .01; ***p = < .001) along the solid lines are betas in the tested model of the inter-relationships between boundaryless work in time and space, that is working anytime and anywhere, respectively, weekly work hours, psychological detachment, sleeping problems and sleep duration.

Always on

39

supported as working ‘anytime’ was significantly associated with poor psychological detachment (b = 0.22, p < .001) whereas working ‘anywhere’ had no influence on psychological detachment. In accordance with Hypothesis 4, having long weekly work hours was associated with poor psychological detachment (b = 0.04, p < .001). As suggested in Hypothesis 5, poor psychological detachment was associated with sleeping problems (b = 0.36, p < .001) and short sleep duration (b = −0.05, p < .001). In addition to the results directly relevant to our hypotheses, some other findings emerged. Having long weekly work hours was negatively associated with sleeping problems (b = −0.01, p < = .001). Moreover, being female was associated with working anytime anywhere to a high degree (b = 0.31, p = .001 and b = 0.06, p = .05, respectively) as well as poor psychological detachment (b = 0.23, p = .001) and longer sleep duration (b = 0.21, p = .001). Finally, age had a negative association with sleep duration (b = −0.05, p = < .01).

Discussion The present study examined whether boundaryless work as regards when, where and how much employees work entail working ‘anytime anywhere’, and further, whether this was associated to problems with psychological detachment and disturbed sleep. The findings from the SEM analysis largely confirmed our hypotheses, thus lending support to the proposed theoretical model tested in the present study. In accordance with Hypotheses 1 and 2, when employees worked ‘anytime’ this also entailed working ‘anywhere’ as well as having long weekly work hours. Working ‘anywhere’, however, decreased the likelihood of long weekly work hours, confirming that this work arrangement does not necessarily entail working a great deal. Moreover, giving partial support for Hypothesis 3, working ‘anytime’ was associated with poor psychological detachment, whereas, contrary to our hypothesis, working ‘anywhere’ had no association with psychological detachment. In accordance with Hypothesis 4, long weekly work hours increased the likelihood of poor psychological detachment, although to a much lesser extent than working ‘anytime’ did. Finally, as expected from Hypothesis 5, poor psychological detachment, in turn, was associated with sleeping problems and short sleep duration. Regarding the effect sizes of the studied relationships, the strongest associations were found between working ‘anytime’ and long weekly work hours, and working ‘anywhere’ and shorter weekly work hours, respectively. The association between working ‘anytime’ and psychological detachment was fairly small, although stronger than that between long weekly work hours and psychological detachment. Taken together, this suggests that working boundlessly in time per se, although it is also a strong precursor to long weekly work hours, indicates problems with detaching, as work-related thoughts and feelings occupy the employee all the time. Working boundlessly in space, in contrast, may serve as a protective factor against the adverse effects of working ‘anytime’ on psychological detachment, as working

40

Christin Mellner et al.

this way indicates a reduction in overall weekly working time. In this context, there may also be an impact of commuting time. That is, if employees work for instance from home one or several days per week, the time spent on commuting is reduced and if work is kept within the contractual work hours then this may be an explanation to why working ‘anywhere’ had no impact on psychological detachment. Moreover, working ‘anywhere’ in terms of physically moving between different workplaces may also function as a mental distraction, a ‘switching off’ from perseverative work cognitions (Brosschot, Gerin, et al., 2006; Brosschot, Pieper, et al., 2005). Interestingly, and unexpectedly, employees with long weekly work hours had a low degree of sleeping problems. The effect size was, however, very small. There was also no association between long weekly work hours and sleep duration. These findings contradict earlier research showing a strong, inverse association between long work hours and sleep, where sleep duration was found to be considerably shorter among employees with long work hours (Caruso, 2014). However, we interpret our findings to mean that if one works a great deal but is able to mentally detach from work-related feelings and thoughts during free time, then sleep will not be hampered because perseverative cognitions associated with prolonged biological activation will have been interrupted (Brosschot, Gerin, et al., 2006; Brosschot, Pieper, et al., 2005). As such, psychological detachment can be regarded as the mechanism that mediates the relationships between working ‘anytime’ and long weekly work hours, and sleep. This interpretation is supported by a recent study showing that increased biological activation continues several hours after perseverative cognitions have stopped, and goes on even during sleep (Brosschot, Verkuil, & Thayer, 2010).

Strengths, Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research Most studies to date have worked with ordinary multiple regression techniques, assuming only direct independent effects. The specific role of each factor is, therefore, not well understood. Furthermore, the presence of manifest and latent variables requires adequate modelling strategies, such as structural equations. The present study proposed a model of more complex relationships between boundaryless work, psychological detachment and sleep that was mainly supported by the results. Furthermore, the study included nearly 4,000 employed professionals from different occupations and organizations in both the private and public sector. The present findings, thus, make a new and valuable contribution to the body of literature on boundaryless work and stress recovery. Despite the study’s strengths, some of its limitations are worth discussing. First, the response rate was fairly low. However, response rate is regarded as a conservative measure, in that non-responses can be classified as ‘passive non-responses’, which are unlikely to create bias (Rogelberg & Stanton, 2007). Web-based surveys, on the other hand, tend to have lower response rates than other methods

Always on

41

(Kraut et al., 2004), and no significant differences between results from web-based surveys and results from other methods are expected (Gosling, Vazire, Srivastava, & John, 2004). Second, our data were based on cross-sectional self-reports and, as such, causality regarding the effects cannot be demonstrated. We therefore call for future longitudinal studies that investigate boundaryless work, psychological detachment and sleep at different points in time and that look at how factors vary over time in relation to other factors in the work domain as well as non-work domains. Another possible limitation concerns use of a single data source, in the form of self-reports made at one time point, which may have resulted in overestimation of the associations between variables due to common method variance. However, a number of sources suggest that the problem of common method variance has been exaggerated (e.g. Spector, 2006). Regarding the composition of our sample, it could be argued that employees with psychological detachment difficulties were underrepresented in our study, as such employees might not have had the time or energy to participate. However, the opposite argument could also be made, namely that employees with a good ability to detach were underrepresented because they did not feel our questions were relevant to them, causing them to refrain from participating. Neither alternative can be excluded, and thus we can assume that the associations among variables were estimated conservatively, due to the restriction of range effects in psychological detachment. Finally, given that the sample consisted of employees from rather specific occupations and organizations, the findings may only be generalizable to selected groups. However, it could also be argued that, as compared to previous research in the field of boundaryless, or new working conditions, which has mainly focused on workers in knowledge-intense organizations in privately run companies active in novel markets (Allvin et al., 2013; Lewis & Smithson, 2006; Mellner, Aronsson, & Kecklund, 2014; Peters et al., 2009; Van Echtelt et al., 2007), the present study included employees from a broader array of occupations and organizations, both in the private and public sector. As such, including these different professional backgrounds and work contexts could be regarded as a strength. However, future studies should try to replicate the findings in other samples and in other countries. Taken together, the results of the present study showed that psychological detachment acted as a key factor in the relationship between boundaryless work and disturbed sleep. However, it should be underscored that boundaryless, flexible working conditions may also be beneficial, for instance for those who are able to keep their weekly work hours within the limits of their contractual work hours, that is avoiding overtime, as well as for those who can avoid increased stress before going to sleep, or those who find more opportunities to coordinate work and non-work. For these individuals, there would be a high degree of worktime control which refers to self-determination of starting and ending times of the work day, breaks, days off, vacations (Costa et al., 2004), and control

42

Christin Mellner et al.

over whether, when and how much to work overtime (Nijp, Beckers, Geurts, Tucker, & Kompier, 2012). As such, this kind of employee-oriented flexibility (Knauth, 1998) would provide additional control of their working situation. Considering this, the possible recovery potential of boundaryless work is another important topic for future study. In this context, we call for further research that adopts a boundary perspective (Ashforth, Kreiner, & Fugate, 2000; Clark, 2000; Nippert-Eng, 1996) focusing on individual characteristics such as preferred boundary management styles, that is segmentation or integration, and related boundary creation strategies and individual perceptions of boundary control. For instance, it could be argued that individual boundary management determines not only the extent to which a worker uses ICT for work purposes outside regular work hours, but also how after-hours availability expectations are perceived and dealt with. This line of reasoning is supported by the few studies showing that segmentation preference, that is keeping work and personal life separated, is positively associated with psychological detachment, where ICT use at home mediates this relationship (Park, Fritz, & Jex, 2011), and that creating boundaries around work-related ICT use during leisure is beneficial to sleep, where psychological detachment acts as a mediator (Barber & Jenkins, 2013). To address these questions, longitudinal research is needed that enables identification of causality and that makes use of objective markers of stress, sleep, recovery and health. These objective markers could also be combined with more subjective self-reports, for example in the form of diary data, on individual boundary management preferences and related boundary creation strategies and perceptions of boundary control, work-related ICT use during leisure as well as psychological detachment. Such an approach would fill the gap in our knowledge about what underlying mechanisms are involved in these relationships and in what direction they work including the relationships between new, technology-enabled working methods and the implications for employees’ ability to achieve psychological detachment and subsequent sleep, recovery and health. This would generate new knowledge about the effects that the rapid changes taking place in contemporary working life changes that are driven by increasingly rapid technological developments are having on employees.

Conclusions The findings suggest that professional workers that are being empowered by having boundaryless working conditions need to manage the increasingly blurred boundaries between their work and personal lives, in particular the boundaries of time as regards work and non-work. If they do not, their possibilities to achieve psychological detachment may be hampered. In this context, not being able to free oneself from work-related feelings and thoughts during leisure may be interpreted as the dark side of freedom as employees run the risk of working ‘anytime all the time’, and as such, of ‘always being on’ resulting in disturbed sleep.

Always on

43

Practical Implications Based on the present findings, it would seem to be critical for organizations to understand the impact of new ways of work for employees’ ability to switch off from work during leisure time. As such, managers and employers need to be more sensitive to the importance of workers’ needs for undisturbed leisure. In this context, organizations can be expected to play an important role in creating new legitimate beliefs and leisure norms. For instance, introducing availability policies regarding undisturbed leisure could be expected to create new legitimate beliefs that improve employees’ possibilities for psychological detachment. This line of reasoning is supported by findings showing that organizational norms as regards keeping work and personal life separated are beneficial to psychological detachment and that creating boundaries around ICT use at home mediates this relationship (Park et al., 2011). In this way, employers and organizations could play a beneficial role in employees’ lives by actively adapting the work situation so as to make it easier for employees to free themselves from work during free time. The expectation here is that this would benefit both organizations and employees in terms of increased possibilities for achieving psychological detachment.

Acknowledgement The authors gratefully acknowledge AFA (120083) for financing this study.

References Allvin, M., Aronsson, G., Hagstro¨m, T., Johansson, G., & Lundberg, U. (2011). Work without boundaries. Psychological perspectives on the new working life. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Allvin, M., Mellner, C., Movitz, F., & Aronsson, G. (2013). The diffusion of flexibility: Estimating the incidence of low-regulated working conditions. Nordic Journal for Work Life Studies, 3(3), 99 115. Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., & Fugate, M. (2000). All in a day’s work. Boundaries and micro role transitions. Academy of Management Review, 25(3), 472 491. Ayas, N. T., White, D. P., Manson, J. E., Stampfer, M. J., Speizer, F. E., Malhotra, A., & Hu, F. B. (2003). A prospective study of sleep duration and coronary heart disease in women. Archives of Internal Medicine, 163(2), 205 209. Bannai, A., & Tamakoshi, A. (2014). The association between long working hours and health: A systematic review of epidemiological evidence. Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment and Health, 40(1), 5 18. Barber, L. K., & Jenkins, J. D. (2013). Examining work-home boundary management, psychological detachment and sleep. Stress & Health, 30, 259 264. Basner, M., Fomberstein, K. M., Razavi, F. M., Banks, S., William, J. H., Rosa, R. R., & Dinges, D. F. (2007). American time use survey: Sleep time and its relationship to waking time activities. Sleep, 30(9), 1085 1095.

44

Christin Mellner et al.

Boswell, W., & Olson-Buchanan, J. (2007). The use of communication technologies after hours: The role of work attitudes and work-life conflict. Journal of Management, 33(4), 592 610. Brosschot, J. F., Gerin, W., & Thayer, J. F. (2006). The perseverative cognition hypothesis: A review of worry, prolonged stress-related physiological activation, and health. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 60, 113 124. Brosschot, J. F., Pieper, S., & Thayer, J. F. (2005). Expanding stress theory: Prolonged activation and perseverative cognition. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 30, 1043 1049. Brosschot, J. F., Verkuil, B., & Thayer, J. F. (2010). Conscious and unconscious perseverative cognition: Is a large part of prolonged physiological activity due to unconscious stress? Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 69, 4017 4416. Caruso, C. C. (2014). Negative impacts of shift work and long work hours. Rehabilitation Nursing, 39, 16 25. Clark, S. (2000). Work/family border theory: A new theory of work/family balance. Human Relations, 53, 747 770. Costa, G., A˚kerstedt, T., Nachreiner, F., Baltieri, F., Carvalhais, J., Folkard, S. … Silverio, J. (2004). Flexible working hours, health, and well-being in Europe: Some considerations from a SALTSA project. Chronobiology International, 21, 831 844. Dahlgren, A., Kecklund, G., & A˚kerstedt, T. (2006). Overtime work and its effects on sleep, sleepiness and cortisol and blood pressure in an experimental field study. Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment and Health, 32, 318 327. de Bloom, J., Kompier, M., Geurts, S., de Weerth, C., Taris, T., & Sonnentag, S. (2009). Do we recover from vacation? Meta-analysis of the effects of vacation on health and wellbeing. Journal of Occupational Health, 51(1), 13 25. Duxbury, L., & Smart, R. (2011). The “myth of separate worlds”: An exploration of how mobile technology has redefined work-life balance. In S. Kaiser, M. J. Ringlstetter, D. R. Eikhof, & M. P. Cunha (Eds.), Creating balance? International perspectives on the work-life integration of professionals (pp. 269 284). Berlin: Springer. Ellingsaeter, A. L. (2003). The complexity of family policy reform. The case of Norway. European Societies, 5(4), 419 443. Fenner, G. H., & Renn, R. W. (2010). Technology-assisted supplemental work and work-tofamily conflict: The role of instrumentality beliefs, organizational expectations and time management. Human Relations, 63(1), 63 82. Fleetwood, S. (2007). Why work-life balance now? International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18, 387 400. Geurts, S. A. E., & Sonnentag, S. (2006). Recovery as an explanatory mechanism in the relation between acute stress reactions and chronic health impairment. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, 32, 482 492. Gosling, S. D., Vazire, S., Srivastava, S., & John, O. P. (2004). Should we trust web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about internet questionnaires. American Psychologist, 59(2), 93 104. Grant, C. A., Wallace, L. M., & Spurgeon, P. C. (2013). An exploration of the psychological factors affecting remote e-worker’s job effectiveness, well-being and work-life balance. Employee Relations, 35(5), 527 546. Grant, D., & Kiesler, S. (2001). Blurring the boundaries: Cell phones, mobility and the line between work and personal life. In B. Brown, R. Harper, & N. Green (Eds.), Wireless

Always on

45

world: Social and interactional aspects of the mobile age (pp. 121 131). New York, NY: Springer. Henslop, P., Smith, G. D., Metcalfe, C., Macleod, J., & Hart, C. (2002). Sleep duration and mortality: The effect of short or long sleep duration on cardiovascular and all-cause mortality in working men and women. Sleep Medicine, 3(4), 305 314. Irwin, M., Clintick, J., Costlow, C., Fortner, M., White, J., & Gillin, J. C. (1996). Partial night sleep deprivation reduces natural killer and cellular immune responses in humans. The FASEB Journal, Official Publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, 10(5), 643 653. Jacobs, J. A., & Gerson, K. (2004). Understanding changes in American working time: A synthesis. In C. Epstein & A. Kalleberg (Eds.), Fighting for time: Shifting boundaries of work and social life (pp. 25 45). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. Kjellberg, A. (2014). Yearly report from the Swedish national mediation office. Retrieved from http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=5051779&fileOId=5051806 Kline, P. (1994). An easy guide to factor analysis. London: Routledge. In B. M. Byrne (Ed.). (2012). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. London: Routledge. Knauth, P. (1998). Innovative worktime arrangements. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 24(3), 13 17. Kompier, M. A. J., Taris, T. W., & van Veldhoven, M. (2012). Tossing and turning-insomnia in relation to occupational stress, rumination, fatigue and well-being. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 38, 238 246. Kraut, R., Olson, J., Mahzarin, B., Bruckman, A., Cohen, J., & Couper, M. (2004). Psychological research online: Report of board of scientific affairs’ advisory group on the conduct of research on the internet. American Psychologist, 59(2), 105 117. Lewis, S., & Smithson, J. (2006). Final report of the transitions project for the EU framework 5 funded study ‘gender, parenthood and the changing European workplace’. Manchester: RIHSC, Manchester metropolitan University. Madden, M., & Jones, S. (2008). Networked workers survey. Princeton Survey Research Associates International 202-419-4500. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/ Major, D. A., & Germano, L. M. (2006). The changing nature of work and its impact on the work-home interface. In F. Jones, R. J. Burke, & M. Westman (Eds.), Work-life balance: A psychological perspective (pp. 13 38). New York, NY: Psychology Press. Mallon, L., Broman, J. E., A˚kerstedt, T., & Hetta, J. (2014). Insomnia in Sweden. A population-based survey. Sleep Disorders, 2014, 1 7. Meijman, T. F., & Mulder, G. (1998). Psychological aspects of workload. In P. J. D. Drenth, H. Thierry, & C. J. deWolff (Eds.), Handbook of work and organizational psychology (pp. 5 33). Hove: Psychology Press. Mellner, C., Aronsson, G., & Kecklund, G. (2014). Boundary management preferences, boundary control, and work-life balance among full-time employed professionals in knowledge-intensive, flexible work. Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies, 4(4), 1 17. Metlaine, A., Leger, D., & Choudat, D. (2005). Socioeconomic of insomnia in working populations. Industrial Health, 43, 11 19. Middleton, C. A., & Cukier, W. (2006). Is mobile email functional or dysfunctional? Two perspectives on mobile email usage. European Journal of Information Systems, 15, 252 260.

46

Christin Mellner et al.

Nijp, H. H., Beckers, D. G. J., Geurts, S. A. E., Tucker, P., & Kompier, M. A. J. (2012). Systematic review on the association between employee worktime control and work non-work balance, health and well-being, and job-related outcomes. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 38(4), 299 313. Nippert-Eng, C. E. (1996). Home and work: Negotiating the boundaries through everyday life. Chicago, IL: University Chicago Press. Nordin, M., A˚kerstedt, T., & Nordin, S. (2013). Psychometric evaluation and normative data for the Karolinska sleep questionnaire. Sleep and Biological Rhythms, 11, 216 226. Parent-Thirion, A., Macias, E. F., Hurley, J., & Vermeylen, G. (2007). Fourth European working conditions survey. Dublin: European Foundation for the Improvement of Working and Living Conditions. Park, Y. A., Fritz, C., & Jex, S. M. (2011). Relationships between work-home segmentation and psychological detachment from work: The role of communication technology use at home. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16(4), 457 467. Peters, P., Den Dulk, L., & Van der Lippe, T. (2009). The effects of time-spatial flexibility on employees’ work-life balance: The Dutch case. Community, Work & Family, 12, 279 297. Preacher, K. J. (2006). Testing complex correlational hypotheses with structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling, 13(4), 520 543. Rogelberg, S. G., & Stanton, J. M. (2007). Understanding and dealing with organizational survey nonresponse. Organizational Research Methods, 10(2), 195 210. So¨derstro¨m, M., Jeding, K., Ekstedt, M., Perski, A., & A˚kerstedt, T. (2012). Insufficient sleep predicts clinical burnout. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17, 175 183. Sonnentag, S., Arbeus, H., Mahn, C., & Fritz, C. (2014). Exhaustion and lack of psychological detachment from work during off-job time: Moderator effects of time pressure and leisure experiences. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 19(2), 206 216. Sonnentag, S., & Bayer, U. V. (2005). Switching off mentally: Predictors and consequences of psychological detachment from work during off-job time. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10, 393 414. Sonnentag, S., Binnewies, C., & Mojza, E. J. (2010). Staying well and engaged when demands are high: The role of psychological detachment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 965 976. Sonnentag, S., & Fritz, C. (2007). The recovery experience questionnaire: Development and validation of a measure for assessing recuperation and unwinding from work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(3), 204 221. Sonnentag, S., & Fritz, C. (2015). Recovery from job stress: The stressor-detachment model as an integrative framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36, 72 103. Sonnentag, S., Kuttler, I., & Fritz, C. (2010). Job stressors, emotional exhaustion, and need for recovery: A multi-source study of the benefits of psychological detachment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76, 355 365. Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research. Truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9(2), 221 232. Steptoe, A., Peacey, V., & Valle, J. (2006). Sleep duration and health in young adults. Archives of Internal Medicine, 166(16), 1689 1692. van der Hulst, M. (2003). Long workhours and health. Scandinavian Journal of Work and Environmental Health, 29(3), 171 188. Van Dongen, H. P. (2006). Shift work and inter-individual differences in sleep and sleepiness. Chronobiology International, 23, 1139 1147.

Always on

47

Van Echtelt, P., Glebbeek, A., Wielers, R., & Lindenberg, S. (2007). The puzzle of unpaid overtime: Can the time greediness of post-Fordist work be explained? In T. Van der Lippe & P. Peters (Eds.), Competing claims in work and family life (pp. 125 143). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Wajcman, J., Bittman, M., & Brown, J. (2008). Families without borders: Mobile phones, connectedness and work-home divisions. Sociology, 42(4), 635 652.

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 3

New Ways of Working and Leadership: An Empirical Study in the Service Industry Jan de Leede and Paddy Heuver

Abstract New Ways of Working seems to change the leadership agenda. Activity-based working and home-based work lead to different behaviors of employees. Supervising styles will change from command-and-control toward goal-setting-and-trust. This chapter describes the trend and provides new data on the actual use and effectiveness of these new supervision styles. It appears to be a mix of different leadership styles, such as leading by vision, setting targets and control on output, providing trust. Keywords: New ways of working; organizational commitment; leadership; empowerment; trust, steering on output; research paper

Introduction In the last decades, how, when and where we work has changed more than any time in history which led to the rise of new ways of working (NWW). More and more organizations see the potential opportunities of implementing forms of NWW. In this chapter we have the same definition of NWW like in the Introduction “New Ways of Working are practices in which employees are able to work independent of time, place and organization, supported by a flexible work environment which is facilitated by information technologies.” The first element of this concept is the core of NWW namely working time- and place-independent. The second element of the concept is the flexible work environment, like open offices or working mobile or at home. The essential part is that these working environments must be appropriate

New Ways of Working Practices: Antecedents and Outcomes Advanced Series in Management, Volume 16, 49 71 Copyright r 2017 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1877-6361/doi:10.1108/S1877-636120160000016004

50

Jan de Leede and Paddy Heuver

for NWW. The third element includes unlimited access and connectivity through IT (Baane, Houtkamp, & Knotter, 2010; Mitchell, 1995; Negroponte, 1995; Van Breukelen, Makkenze, & Waterreus, 2014). Specific styles of leadership and the autonomy of employees to manage their own work and work relations (Baane et al., 2010) can be considered as preconditions of NWW. This chapter deals with one of those preconditions, namely leadership. The attributed effects in behavior such as empowerment, more organizational commitment, higher trust relations make implementing NWW beneficial for organizations. Leadership plays an important role in the behavior dimension since NWW and its vision require alternative ways to manage employees by indicating the direction, coaching, and to make them feel trusted, respected and noticing a concern for employees’ welfare (Bass, 1985; De Leede & Kraijenbrink, 2014; Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Dorfman et al., 1997). To make NWW a success, the role of the leader is essential in propagating NWW by informing and enthusing the employees. Also, NWW can be described as a process of change. Leadership (styles) are related to coping with change (Kotter, 1996). In short, there is no discussion on the importance of leadership in NWW. Two pathways on leadership and NWW are explored in this chapter. The first is to identify the new leadership behaviors that fit with these NWW practices. The second pathway is to explore which of these new leadership styles are contributing to the effectiveness of NWW practices. Therefore, for both pathways we develop a theoretical framework on leadership competencies that support NWW practices and present empirical data on these leadership competencies and their outcomes. The main research question of this study is: “To what extent does leadership contribute to the organizational outcomes of NWW?” It will help us forward in fully understanding leadership and leadership competencies in the context of NWW. Also, it will strengthen the literature by providing evidence of the organizational outcomes when implementing (components of) NWW. To be more specific, the purpose of this chapter is to examine if leadership moderates the relationship between NWW and the outcome of organizational commitment. In this chapter we present empirical data on the relationship of leadership competencies as a moderator of the success of NWW.

The Influence of Leadership Behaviors on NWW Practices and Their Outcomes To develop a theoretical framework on leadership and NWW practices, it is necessary to operationalize our definition of New Ways of Working (NWW). We continue with the observation of the “Introduction” that it is important to disentangle the concept of NWW into concepts that have been researched before. The NWW practices can be comprised of four main components that refer to existing practices.

New Ways of Working and Leadership

51

Components of NWW NWW is divided into four components of NWW, namely (1) Teleworking, (2) Flexible Workplaces at Work, (3) Flexible Working Hours, and (4) IT. Teleworking is defined as “a form of organizing and/or performing work, using information technology, in the context of an employment contract/relationship, where work, which could also be performed at the employer’s premises, is carried out away from those premises on a regular basis” (EFILWC, 2010, p. 2). Flexible Workplaces at Work is defined as a “continuum of discretion concerning how frequently employees conduct their work away from the main work site” (Thompson, 2011, p. 6). It involves flexibility in the use of the location where work is conducted. This concept addresses not only all aspects of the physical work environment such as premises and facilities but also the work environment at home or elsewhere. This is characterized by an offices concept aimed at flexible work, work areas furnished according to concept of “activity-related work,” inspiring office environments which are set up as a home base and meeting place, and an open network environment that brings the “the outside world” inside (Baane et al., 2010). Flexible Working Hours is defined as “having the ability to schedule flexible starting and quitting times, sometimes with a core-hours requirement” but also to have the flexibility in taking days off (Eaton, 2003, p. 146). The last component is IT and stands for “Information Technology.” Information Technologies encompass a broad array of communication media and devices which link information systems and people including e-mail, voice conferencing, video conferencing, groupware and collaboration tools, social media, corporate intranets, personal digital assistants and so on. The most important characteristics in this dimension are real-time availability and accessibility of information for all, technology that adjusts to the user, implementing web 2.0 software and the use of smartphones and laptops to empower employees to work together virtually (Baane et al., 2010).

Outcomes: Organizational Commitment Why are organizations implementing NWW? What are the benefits, or in other words, the outcomes of NWW for organizations? As mentioned in the introduction, there are many potential outcomes that can be achieved by implementing NWW. In our empirical study it was not possible to include all possible outcomes, such as productivity, customer satisfaction, real estate costs, commitment, work-life balance, social cohesion. We had to focus on one outcome, due to reasons of feasibility of the research, availability of useful data and also because of length of the questionnaire. This chapter focuses on the potential outcome organizational commitment. It is one those central outcomes of NWW, see for example, Brummelhuis et al. (2012). Organizational commitment refers “to a person’s affective reactions to characteristics of his employing organization. It is concerned with feelings of attachment to the goals and values of the organization, one’s role in relation to this, and

52

Jan de Leede and Paddy Heuver

attachment to the organization for its own sake rather than for its strictly instrumental value” (Cook & Wall, 1980, p. 40). According to Mowday, Steers, and Porter (1979) it is seen as the relative strength to which an employee identifies itself with the organization. Many researchers have suggested that employers who provide work-life benefits, including flexibility policies, reap the rewards of higher employee commitment (Dalton & Mesch, 1990; Friedman & Greenhaus, 2000; Grover & Crooker, 1995; Rodgers, 1992; Thompson, Beauvais, & Lyness, 1999). The literature provides different views about how NWW components (teleworking, flexible workplaces at work, flexible working hours, and IT) can lead to more organizational commitment of employees. The following subsections will examine the possible relations between NWW components and organizational commitment in more detail. Teleworking and Organizational Commitment Organizations that provide employees with the flexibility to work from home are providing a positive signal, visibly demonstrating their trust and support for employees’ well-being. This signal from organizations should, in turn, generate greater psychological commitment and a lowered tendency to quit (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Hunton and Norman (2010) found a higher commitment among medical coders who could choose from different telework options. Remarkably, those who could only choose to work from home (and not from satellite offices or from downtown offices) were not more committed compared with the control group. Kelliher and Anderson (2009) reported similar findings on flexible employees who showed higher job satisfaction, higher organizational commitment along with higher work intensification. Golden and Veiga (2008) confirmed the finding of a positive relationship between telework and organizational commitment. They stated that employees who work in an intense virtual work could lead to more or less commitment. The level of commitment was influenced by the quality of the relationship between the manager and the employee, wherein low quality led to a decrease and high quality led to an increase of organizational commitment. Whereas Golden (2006) used a sample of 393 teleworkers in one organization and found that teleworking is positively related to organizational commitment (β = .17, p < .001). However, employees who choose to telecommute may also find their loyalty and commitment being questioned by managers (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007). For example, the study of Harpaz (2002) stated that teleworking can possibly harm the organizational commitment since from a distance it is harder to control, instill motivation, commitment, and influence. Flexible Workplaces at Work and Organizational Commitment In the last decade, having Flexible Workplaces at Work has received more attention since organizations list workplace flexibility as a potential benefit for both employees and the organization. The study of Pitt-Catsouphes and Matz-Costa (2008)

New Ways of Working and Leadership

53

provides empirical evidence about the positive relationship between flexible workplaces and organizational commitment. Their study suggests that flexibility fit, that is, the degree to which flexibility options meet the employees’ needs, is a positive predictor of engagement. Most studies on flexible workplaces “have examined the availability or utilization of different flexible work options assuming a ‘more is better’ perspective” (Pitt-Catsouphes & Matz-Costa, 2008, p. 220). However, they consider that it is better to conceptualize it as a fit. For example, an organization offers a broad range of flexible work options, but if these options do not meet the needs of the employees, or if these options do not fit the tasks and activities, they are fruitless. The results of their study confirmed these assumptions. “Flexibility fit is a powerful positive predictor of engagement for all employees, and it may be a more powerful predictor of engagement for older workers” (Pitt-Catsouphes & Matz-Costa, 2008, p. 225). We know that distance matters, since the classic study of Allen (1977) who measured the frequency of communication of employees in seven organizations that showed that working at a distance of 30 meters apart from each other did not differ from working 3,000 kilometers apart from each other. The key issue however is the promise of NWW that distance is of less importance. In NWW some advocates talk about the integration of the physical, virtual and mental environment (Veldhoen, 2005). This integration can take place in shared workspaces and open offices; here, non-dedicated workspaces are the common practice, in which workers may choose their own workspaces for that day or part of the working hours. The workspaces at the office will change into meeting space. However, many problems with open offices have been documented, such as noise, lack of privacy and other distractions. On the other hand, the traditional office lay-out with enclosed and private offices may hamper communication, teamwork and flexible use of space. A study on the effects of open offices found that more personal control over the physical workspace, such as adjustment, and easy access to meeting places led to higher perceived group cohesiveness and job satisfaction (Lee & Brand, 2005).

Flexible Working Hours and Organizational Commitment Perceptions of flexible working hours may increase employees’ loyalty and satisfaction due to positive feelings associated with working for an organization that visibly cares about the well-being of its employees. Increased commitment can be realized because of several reasons. First, the individual may perceive the organization’s offering of flexible working hours as representing the organization’s concern for work and family. Employees may see this as an aspect of the psychological contact since their ability to balance multiple responsibilities is congruent with individual values about work and family (i.e., “this organization cares about people”). Second, flexible working hours allow individuals to feel increased control over their lives due to the opportunity to work during times more suited to personal needs or personal biological clocks (not everyone is most productive from 9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m.). Third, having flexible working hours available improves employees’

54

Jan de Leede and Paddy Heuver

perceptions about their employer. It also increases employees’ overall positive feeling toward the organization which impacts organizational commitment. Fourth, employees often engage in social comparison processes (Adams, 1965) and may compare their situation to peers in other jobs and/or organizations that do not offer flexible work programs. Such comparisons should increase the value of the employees’ psychological contract with their employer. The studies of Scandura and Lankau (1997) and Ng, Butts, Vandenberg, Dejoy, and Wilson (2006) provide empirical evidence about the positive relationship between flexible working hours and organizational commitment. For example, Ng et al. (2006) researched 21 retail centers and found that work schedule flexibility had positive effects on organizational commitment. This is also underlined by the study of Lyness, Gornick, Stone, and Grotto (2012), who studied the ability of workers to control their work schedules and hours among industrialized countries wherein they used data of 21 countries. In response to the offering of flexible working hours, employees may reciprocate with greater loyalty to the employer and better morale. Based upon the idea that flexible working hours represent an aspect of the contract between employees and employers and the previous literature, it is expected that flexible working hours are positively related to organizational commitment (loyalty to employer). Again, it is not only the availability of flexible hours per se, rather the degree of control of employees over these flexible hours (Nijp, Beckers, Geurts, Tucker, & Kompier, 2012).

IT and Organizational Commitment Organizations started to implement NWW practices since the advances in IT. IT has enabled the possibility of distributed work. Nowadays, it is possible for employees to work together while temporally and spatially decoupled from one another (Wiesenfeld, Raghuram, & Garud, 1999). However, these changes raise new challenges for organizations. For example, IT offers the freedom to work anytime, anyplace and anyhow but this may also lead to a weakening of the ties that bind employees of an organization to each other and to their organization (Wiesenfeld et al., 1999). Their results also suggested that organizational commitment was higher among highly virtual workers than among less virtual workers. IT is of more importance for virtual workers since by using IT they create and sustain their organizational identification. This is also underlined by the studies of Meyer and Allen (1997) and Rodwell, Kienzle, and Shadur (1998). Their studies showed that “informationsharing practices favor the internalization of organizational goals and values by employees, enhance feelings of mutual trust, and make individuals feel important to the company” (Pare´ & Tremblay, 2007, p. 329). In line with the configurational approach, we might assume that certain combinations of the NWW components can increase the positive effects on organizational commitment. Before hypotheses are formulated, we first want to discuss the influence of leadership on the relationship between NWW and commitment.

New Ways of Working and Leadership

55

Leadership The development and implementation of NWW practices can be described as an organizational change. In response to the changes that come along with NWW, organizational design, structures and processes need to become adaptive and more flexible (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002). Also, the behavior of employees is evolving into more empowered, responsible and innovative behavioral styles (Baane et al., 2010; Veldhoen, 2005). One of the roles of leadership is to manage these changes by inspiring, coaching, facilitating and directing employees and is also broadly recognized as a critical success factor (Howell & Avolio, 1992; Yukl, 2002). Leaders have a strong influence on the work behavior of employees (Yukl, 2002). Therefore, this study will elaborate on leadership. Leadership is extensively discussed in the literature and has various definitions. Ciulla (1995) listed the definitions of leadership from different periods which shows the moments of the definitions over time. In the 1920s, leadership was defined as the ability to impress. During the 1970s, leadership was defined in terms of discretionary influence which refers to the behavior of the leader. Nowadays, the emphasis has moved to achieving organizational goals (Hayes, 2014; Winston & Patterson, 2006). The definitions of leadership vary in their connotation over the years. However, nowadays the field of leadership not only focuses on the leader but also on the peers, supervisors, followers, work/setting context and culture (Avolio, Walumbwa, & Weber, 2009). Leadership can no longer be described as an individual characteristic but is shown in several models as strategic, relational, shared, dyadic, complex social dynamic and global (Avolio et al., 2009; Yukl, 2002). In conclusion, many academics define leadership as “some kind of process, act, or influence that in some way gets people to do something” (Ciulla, 1995, p. 12).

Leadership Styles Managers are in the best setting to provide leadership that is needed to ensure successful work (Kotter, 1990). Early work on leadership styles proposed that some leadership styles were superior to others (Hayes, 2014). Later researchers proposed theories that there is not one leadership style which is best in all circumstances but the most effective leadership style depends on situational factors such as organizational context, employees and the task (Adair, 1973; Fiedler, 1967; Hersey & Blanchard, 1977). Nowadays, there are various leadership styles such as authentic leadership, transformational leadership, and new-genre leadership. In the context of NWW practices, such as working at home, virtual teams, flexible hours, flexible and open offices, we think e-leadership fits best to the concept of NWW. E-leadership is defined as “leadership where individuals or groups are geographically dispersed and interactions are mediated by technology” (Avolio et al., 2009, p. 440) which exactly fits the core of NWW: working time- and place-independent supported by IT. E-leadership is elaborated as a leadership that fits with NWW. According to Hayes

56

Jan de Leede and Paddy Heuver

(2014), what leaders do can have a strong effect on the behavior of employees to make NWW a success. Therefore, three leadership competencies of leaders which have an influence on achieving the organizational outcome of NWW are described. These three leadership competences are mentioned frequently in the NWW literature. Leadership Competence 1: Empowerment Empowerment “is a leadership strategy that is concerned to provide subordinates with the power to do their work fully” (Bryman, Stephens, & Campo, 1996, p. 358). In contemporary leadership literature, empowerment is viewed as a consequence of the behavior of leaders or it is viewed as an approach to the behavior of the leader in its own right (Bryman et al., 1996). Avolio, Zhu, and Koh (2004) studied the mediating effect of empowerment on the relationship between transformational leadership and organizational commitment on a sample of 520 nurses in Singapore. The results showed that empowerment mediated the relationship between transformational leadership and organizational commitment. This is also underlined by the study of Bogler and Somech (2004) who stated that empowerment is a significant predictor of organizational commitment. According to Hayes (2014), leaders need to remove the barriers and create conditions that will empower people to deliver change. In the context of NWW, barriers might be lack of access to relevant information, misaligned performance measures and other incentives that reward employees to maintain the old ways of working. According to these theories and the findings, we may assume that the presence of empowerment has a positive relationship with organizational commitment. Hypothesis 1. Empowerment will moderate the relationship between NWW and organizational commitment in such a way that the relationship between NWW and organizational commitment will be more positive. Leadership Competence 2: Trust As already mentioned, trust is a crucial aspect in NWW (Baruch, 2001; Blok, Groenesteijn, Schelvis, & Vink, 2012; Van Breukelen et al., 2014). This is also found in many leadership theories, since it is found as a significant component of leader’s credibility in effective leadership (Kouzes & Posner, 1993; Shaw, 1997). Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2000) made a review about articles concerning trust and came to the conclusion that trust is multifaceted and complex because of the various degrees and bases depending on the context of the trust relationship. “Trust is one party’s willingness to be vulnerable to another party based on the confidence that the latter party is (a) benevolent, (b) reliable, (c) competent, (d) honest, and (e) open” (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2000, p. 556). Trust can occur on different levels such as trust on the organizational level, trust in colleagues and trust in management (Cook & Wall, 1980; Hoy & Kupersmith, 1985). Organizational trust and interpersonal trust are most common (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). Interpersonal trust “is an expectancy held by an individual or group that the word, promise, verbal or written statement of another individual or group can be relied upon” (Rotter, 1967, p. 651).

New Ways of Working and Leadership

57

In the context of NWW, interpersonal trust between colleagues and in management are important since NWW consists of working anytime, anyplace and anyhow which requires mutual trust among employees and in management. In NWW, employees work time- and place-independent and leaders might experience a decline in perceived control (Kurland & Cooper, 2002). Therefore, trust is of importance since leaders have to trust their workers that they will perform and meet the agreed schedules. However, trust among employees is also of importance since employees must rely on their colleagues to perform (De Leede & Kraijenbrink, 2014). The literature shows empirical evidence for both the relationship between trust and organizational commitment (Bu¨ssing, 2002; Cho & Park, 2011) and the relationship between supervisory trust and organizational commitment (Perry, 2004). So, the presence of trust between colleagues and trust in management has a positive relationship with organizational commitment, the hypothesis for NWW as a whole is as follows. Hypothesis 2a. Trust between colleagues will moderate the relationship between NWW and organizational commitment in such a way that the relationship between NWW and organizational commitment will be more positive. Hypothesis 2b. Trust in management will moderate the relationship between NWW and organizational commitment in such a way that the relationship between NWW and organizational commitment will be more positive. Leadership Competence 3: Steering on Output In popular NWW publications, the general observation is that steering on presence is no longer possible due to working time- and place-independent; instead, steering on output is the new alternative (Baane et al., 2010; Bernardino, Roglio, & Del Corso, 2012; Caillier, 2013). The type of management control has changed from a control of staff presence to a form of output-oriented control (Vos & van der Voordt, 2001). Caillier (2013) mentioned two types of control: behavior-based controls and output-based controls. Behaviorbased controls are typically used on traditional employees and refer “to the strategy of judging performance on the basis of workers’ observable activities, regardless of results” (p. 640). Output-based controls refer to the evaluation of leaders of the performance of employees which is based on output, products, or deliverables of work. Offstein, Morwick, and Koskinen (2010) found that the key to successful teleworking in both public and private organizations “is more of a function of leadership than technology” (p. 32). Steering on output appears to be essential in NWW (Mahler, 2012) and leaders should change their focus from “work time” to “work results” (Mayo, Pastor, Gomez-Mejia, & Cruz, 2009). However, also employees should commit themselves toward quality, results, benchmarks and agreement on deadlines (Bernardino et al., 2012). Until now, little empirical evidence exists about how steering on output can lead to more organizational commitment. Most studies provide evidence for a positive relationship. For example, Agarwal (1999) found that output-based controls reduce the negative effect of formalization on organizational commitment. Oliver and

Jan de Leede and Paddy Heuver

58

Anderson (1995) found behavior-based controls leading to more organizational commitment than output-based controls. Although these studies present evidence in a traditional context, such as salespeople, the influence of output-based leadership in NWW practices can only be expected to be similar. Therefore, the hypothesis for NWW as a whole is as follows. Hypothesis 3. Output-based controls will moderate the relationship between NWW and organizational commitment in such a way that the relationship between NWW and organizational commitment will be more positive.

Method The data for this study is collected from a division of a Dutch organization in the financial industry. The organization implemented in a certain degree NWW in their organization. They moved into a new office that was fully reflecting the organization’s view of NWW. It is possible to work in flexible spaces, on flexible hours and to work at home, all supported by IT. This division consists of four departments with around 2,500 employees. A survey was distributed among the four departments. The total sample size involved 296 employees. The overall response rate was 12%, with 258 usable surveys. Only the middle management, subordinates, and office workers are taken into account. As we may observe from Table 1, this division has an ageing workforce (with one out of three older than 50 years) and quite a long organizational tenure (with almost 50% working for longer than 16 years). They employ mostly men and mostly working fulltime.

Measurements Teleworking The variable is self-developed based on the checklist developed by Van Breukelen et al. (2014). The scale consisted of two items: “How many hours (in percentage) per week do you work from home?” and “How many hours (in Table 1: Sample characteristics. Gender

62% male, 38% female

Age

6% born < 1955; 27% between 1955 and 1964; 37% between 1965 and 1974, 25% between 1975 and 1984, and 5% after 1984

Contract hours

77% work > 35 hours per week

Tenure

28% > 25 years; 19% between 16 and 24 years; 17% between 9 and 16 years; 28% between 4 and 9 years; 8% < 4 years

New Ways of Working and Leadership

59

percentage) per week do you work from another location (nor office or home)?” It appeared to be possible to sum both questions up as one: “How many hours do you not work at the office workplaces.” Therefore, the mean of both outcomes was summed up and divided by two. It was divided by two since (1) the results are shown in a relative sense and (2) because the four components are merged into one 10-point scale (NWW). It was tested if this method differed from only summing up both outcomes which was not the case.

Flexible Workplaces at Work The three items of this variable are self-developed based on the checklist developed by Van Breukelen et al. (2014). However, the reliability of this scale is low (Cronbach’s Alpha 0.35). The first two questions indicated if flexible (non-dedicated) workplaces at work were available for employees. The only question used in our analysis, which indicated the usage of flexible workplaces was as follows: “How many hours (in percentage) per week do you make use of flexible workplaces at the office?” No Cronbach’s Alpha is needed, since this is a 1-item variable. Flexible Working Hours This variable is measured by two items (Kendall’s tau-b 0.657) which are self-developed based on the checklist developed by Van Breukelen et al. (2014). The two stated questions were: “How many hours in percentage do you have the freedom to spend your time in a week?” and “How much freedom do you get to decide what days you work a week (in percentage)?” It can be concluded that there is a relatively positive correlation (Kendall’s tau-b: 0.66; p < 0.001; n = 289) between how much freedom in days and how many hours respondents feel empowered to fill in at their own choice. IT This variable is measured with seven items (Cronbach’s Alpha 0.68) which are self-developed based on the checklist developed by Van Breukelen et al. (2014). The items were: “Do you have the resources at home (computer, fast internet etc.) to work for your job,” “How often do you use digital business systems at home?,” “How often do you use digital business systems from another location (no office or home)?,” “How often do you use cloud computing for your work?,” “How often do you use video conferencing (with image)?,” “How often do you use video conferencing (without image)?,” “How many hours per week (in percentage) are you busy with work related tasks while on the road for your job (mails, calls, writing document)?” NWW Given the configurational approach, it was decided to also measure NWW as whole since a combined effect of the components appeared to be stronger. The four components, teleworking, flexible workplaces at work, flexible working hours, and IT together, constitute the construct NWW. To be able to merge the scales of the components of NWW, the components of NWW were recoded into 10-point scales. The data showed a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.73. When this component was scaled into 10-point scales, the Cronbach’s Alpha changed to 0.77. The 10-point

60

Jan de Leede and Paddy Heuver

scales were used to compare the various components of NWW and to be able to use it as one variable. Organizational Commitment The variable is operationalized based on Cook and Wall (1980). Originally the scale consists of nine items. However, eight items (Cronbach’s Alpha 0.80) are used for this research since the item “I’m not willing to put myself out to help the organization” was omitted because it overlaps with the item “In my work I like to feel I am making some effort, not just for myself but for the organization as well.” Originally the answers of the items are based on a sevenpoint Likert-scale. However, in this survey the items are based on a five-point Likert-scale (1 = “strongly disagree,” 5 = “strongly agree”) to have a consistent answering scale which facilitates filling in the survey. Two of eights items were reversed stated questions (question 2 and 7). These questions were recoded. Productivity The overall productivity of employees is measured with six items from an existing questionnaire of Staples et al. (1999). Examples of items regarding this component are: “I believe I am an effective employee,” “I work very efficiently,” “My manager believes I am an efficient worker,” and “I am happy with the quality of my work output.” The answers of the items are based on a five-point Likert-scale (1 = “strongly disagree,” 5 = “strongly agree”). The Cronbach’s alpha of productivity is 0.90. Empowerment Four items (Cronbach’s Alpha 0.86) are used to measure empowerment based on the method of Spreitzer (1995). Only the dimensions “self-determination” and “impact” were used since it entails job autonomy. The stated items were: “I have significant autonomy in determining how I do my job,” “I can decide on my own how to go about doing my work,” “I have considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how I do my job,” and “My impact on what happens in my department is large.” Originally the answers of the items are based on a seven-point Likert-scale. However, in this survey the items are based on a five-point Likertscale (1 = “strongly disagree,” 5 = “strongly agree”) to have a consistent answering scale in the survey. Trust The variable trust was divided in two ways: trust in management and trust between colleagues. The items are based on an existing dataset of Cook and Wall (1980). This dataset is still one of the most used datasets to measure interpersonal trust (Matzler & Renzl, 2006). Trust in Management Five items (Cronbach’s Alpha 0.85) are used to measure trust in management: “Management at my firm is sincere in its attempts to meet the worker’s point of view,” “Our firm has a poor future unless it can attract better managers,” “Management can be trusted to make sensible decisions for the firm’s future,” “Management at work seems to do an efficient job,” and “I feel quite confident that the firm will always try to treat me fairly.”

New Ways of Working and Leadership

61

Trust between Colleagues Originally the variable was measured by five items. However, the reliability of the scale was not good enough. Therefore, the item “I can trust the people I work with to lend me a hand if I needed it” was deleted. The remaining items were: “If I got into difficulties at work I know my workmates would try and help me out,” “Most of my workmates can be relied upon to do as they say they will do,” “I have full confidence in the skills of my workmates,” and “I can rely on other workers not making my job more difficult by careless work.” The Cronbach’s Alpha after the item was deleted was 0.79. Steering on Output The variable is operationalized with three items based on the study of Ouchi (1978). However, because of the reliability of the scale, only question 2 “When you are being evaluated for a raise or promotion, how much weight does your supervisor give to the records of your output?” was included in the analysis. The items “Does your immediate superior keep such records of your individual output?” and “How often does your immediate supervisor check to see what you are doing on the job?” were excluded. Analysis The quantitative analysis consists of three parts: (1) univariate analysis, (2) bivariate analysis, and (3) multivariate analysis. Univariate analysis describes the descriptive statistics of only one variable. All variables appeared to be normal distributed. Bivariate analysis entails the relationship between two variables whereas multivariate analysis is based on tests with more than two variables. A regression analysis was performed to test the moderating role of the leadership competencies in the relationship between NWW and organizational commitment. The data was analyzed with SPSS version 21.

Results Descriptives and Correlation Analysis Table 2 presents the results of the descriptive and the bivariate correlation analysis. A Pearson correlation analysis was used to determine the strength and direction of the bivariate relationship. One-tailed significance was tested since only positive relationships were expected. The table shows almost only positive and significant values with the exception of the control variables and the relationship between teleworking and organizational commitment. The statistical significant correlation between NWW and organizational commitment was 0.146 (Pearson). Table 3 presents the means and standard deviations of (the components of) NWW and the leadership competencies for each of the four departments. For most of the respondents, it is not quite normal to work at home (between 0% and 10%). However, it is normal to make use of the flexible workplaces at work (31 50%),

62

Gender Age

Mean SD

Gender

1.38b 0.49 2.96c 0.99

.135*

Age

Teleworking

Flexible Workplaces at Work

Flexible Working Hours

IT

Teleworking

1.58

1.47 −.098*

Flexible workplaces at work Flexible working hours

5.77 4.66

2.16 −.043 .099* 2.35 −.219** −.097

.303** .529**

.401**

IT NWW

2.16 5.23

0.70 −.111* .047 2.49 −.158** −.040

.517** .778**

.412** .700**

.591** .837**

.747**

Organizational commitment

3.87

0.65 −.041

.053

.127*

.156**

.107*

a

−.123*

−.238**

Correlations based on Pearson correlation analysis. Scores can be 1 (male) and 2 (female). c 1 = born < 1955; 2 = born between 1955 and 1964; 3 = born between 1965 and 1974, 4 = born between 1975 and 1984, and 5 = born after 1984. * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level. ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level. b

NWW

.146**

Jan de Leede and Paddy Heuver

Table 2: Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations.a

New Ways of Working and Leadership

63

Table 3: Descriptives per department: Means (standard deviations). Dept. A

Dept. B

Dept. C

Dept. D

Teleworkinga Flexible workplaces at worka

1.47 (1.44) 5.86 (2.08)

1.81 (1.60) 6.24 (1.34)

1.60 (1.62) 5.83 (2.12)

1.79 (1.43) 5.34 (2.48)

Flexible working hoursa

4.56 (2.34)

4.19 (2.24)

4.12 (2.47)

5.43 (2.18)

ITb NWWc

2.14 (0.69) 5.15 (2.48)

2.52 (0.50) 5.60 (2.16)

2.10 (0.87) 5.00 (2.66)

2.12 (0.63) 5.47 (2.53)

Productivity Organizational commitment

4.25 (0.51) 3,89 (0.63)

4.22 (0.33) 4.01 (0.53)

4.19 (0.47) 3.69 (0.53)

4.21 (0.71) 3.92 (0.80)

Empowermentb

3.83 (0.82)

4.20 (0.48)

3.71 (0.98)

4.12 (0.56)

Trust in management Trust between colleaguesb

3.49 (0.74) 4.05 (0.59)

3.58 (0.61) 4.14 (0.57)

3.59 (0.69) 4.09 (0.49)

3.55 (0.78) 4.03 (0.76)

Steering on outputb

4.12 (1.30)

4.05 (1.13)

4.05 (1.45)

4.18 (1.23)

b

1 = 0 5%, 2 = 6 10%, 3 = 11 20%, 4 = 21 30%, 5 = 31 40%, 6 = 41 50%, and 7 = > 50%. 1 = never/totally disagree, 2 = sometimes/disagree, 3 = once a month/neutral, 4 = once a week/agree, 5 = daily/totally agree. c A 10-point scale. a

b

especially for department B. The respondents of department B feel most empowered in comparison to the other three departments. The other variables, such as trust in management, trust between colleagues and steering on output only slightly differ between the departments. Regression Analysis Figure 1 presents the results of the regression analysis for testing the moderating role of the leadership competencies. The direct effects of the components of NWW on organizational commitment are significant (p < 0.001) as well as the direct influences of the leadership competencies on organizational commitment. However, we found no significant moderating effect of the leadership competencies on the relationship between (the components of) NWW and organizational commitment. As an example we present the interaction effects of one of the leadership competencies, namely empowerment. Figure 2 presents the interaction effects of empowerment on the relationship NWW-organizational commitment. It shows a typical curvilinear relation between NWW and commitment, which will be argued further in the discussion section. The main effect of empowerment shows a significant relation with organizational commitment (p = .03). If we look further, low and medium scores on empowerment do not show an effect in high NWW environments. Only high empowerment shows a positive effect. However, these

Jan de Leede and Paddy Heuver

Leadership competencies

64

Empowerment

0.377

Trust in Management

0.565

Trust between Colleagues

0.324

Steering on output

0.271 Commitment

Teleworking NWW

0.127 Flexible workspaces Flexible working hours

0.156 0.107

IT usage 0.146

Figure 1: Model of significant findings on outcome variable organizational commitment. Note: Standardized coefficients (Beta) are used.

interaction effects are not significant. The hypothesis 1 must be rejected. The same occurs with the other leadership competencies. Similarly, hypotheses 2a, 2b and 3 are rejected.

Discussion This study is contributing to the literature on New Ways of Working and its work-related outcomes such as productivity and organizational commitment, and especially on the role of leadership. We view three findings as particularly valuable. The first finding of this study is the positive relationships between NWW and productivity and NWW and organizational commitment. We found significant correlations, however, the results of the regression indicated on a weak one: only little variance in productivity or organizational commitment could be explained by NWW. So, although there is some positive relationship, it is not simply the more, the better. Our understanding of this finding is twofold. In the first place, our interpretation is that we no longer can view NWW as a linear construct. We must assume curvilinear relationships. This is especially the case with teleworking, as already indicated by other studies, like Golden and Veiga (2005) and Virick, DaSilva, and Arrington (2010). They both observed an inverted U-shape relationship between the amount of telecommuting and job and life satisfaction. We may assume the same for productivity and organizational commitment. So, it is the amount of telework that matters. The longer you work “out of sight” the

New Ways of Working and Leadership

65

Figure 2: Interaction effect of trust in management on the relationship NWW and organizational commitment.

more you might suffer from professional isolation (e.g., Golden, Veiga, & Dino, 2008), which is decreasing productivity and organizational commitment. In practice, 1 2 days working at home seems to be optimal, longer is not productive. In the second place, NWW is a multifaceted construct that consists of several NWW practices. These practices all are contingent to contextual factors on organizational, team and individual level. For instance, if teleworking is not supported by high connectivity through IT, then it will be counter-productive. This contingent character of NWW might explain the relatively low R squares. In short, NWW might be viewed as curvilinear construct, contingent on several contextual factors. The second finding of this study is the absence of a moderating effect of leadership competencies on the relationship between NWW and organizational commitment. Our hypotheses were all pointing in the direction of moderating, in the sense

66

Jan de Leede and Paddy Heuver

that more empowerment, trust and steering on output will strengthen the relationship between NWW and outcomes. However, this is not supported by our data. It seems to be that the degree of NWW does not matter. Employees in all working environments, from low NWW to high NWW, report the same outcomes given a particular leadership style. In other words, the NWW practices do not save “bad leaders.” It is not so much a matter of NWW, but it is the leadership style itself that matters. They have a direct influence on outcomes and not a moderating effect. A few explanations of our results can be mentioned. Our study included some control variables, such as age and gender, but no other individual characteristics. It might be the case that our results can be explained by taking into account the influence of individual preferences, such as need for structure (Slijkhuis, 2012) and need for leadership (Breevaart et al., 2015). The preference for working at home is lower for people with a higher need for structure, as Slijkhuis (2012) showed. Those with a higher need for structure in general like the routines in going to the office have contact with colleagues and supervisors, having working plans that are provided by others and so on. They prefer the initiating structure leadership style (see e.g., Fleishman, 1995) in which managers employ a taskoriented style and provide structure, direction, and clarity in group and member roles. Even more convincing might be the argument of the need for leadership that vary over time. This dynamic part of leadership is demonstrated by Breevaart et al. (2015) who showed that employees vary per week in the need for leadership. In some weeks they need more guidance toward goal achievement and inspiration from their leaders compared to other weeks when they can lead themselves. In other words, the need for leadership may vary across time, and so does the appropriate leadership style: sometimes employees need transformational leadership styles, sometimes they need self-leadership. If we apply these observations on our study, the reason that leadership does not relate to NWW practices might be that people themselves choose the appropriate working environment. Employees with a high need for structure can choose to work at “normal” office hours at the office. Then they work more productive and show higher commitment. Apparently, that is a stronger effect than the supposed moderating effect of leadership: leaders cannot compensate in their leadership styles for the possible mismatch in person-NWW-practice. Instead, leaders should adapt their leadership styles to the individual employees and their personal characteristics. The third finding is that leadership matters: all our four competencies empowerment, trust in management, trust between colleagues, and steering on output have a positive impact on organizational commitment. In addition, empowerment and trust do have a positive impact on productivity. These are not moderating effects, rather direct effects. Given the above discussion, we may propose for future researchers on leadership and NWW to take into consideration these direct effects. Maybe, it is a mediating role, like other studies also suggest. Dahlstrom (2013) suggest that leadership can mediate the negative aspects of telework on organizational commitment. De Leede and Kraijenbrink (2014) also provide

New Ways of Working and Leadership

67

evidence for the trusting leadership style to be mediating the relationship between NWW and performance.

Limitations This study has some limitations because of the used methods and the limitations in time and resources. The first limitation is the generalizability of this study. This study only based on the data of one organization in the Netherlands. Therefore, it is not possible to generalize the conclusion of this study for other organizations and/or countries. In addition, since the case study was done in the financial industry it is difficult to generalize the results to other sectors. Nevertheless, we think that these results do provide insights into the role of leadership in NWW. Further research should test the outcomes in other sectors. Another limitation is the crosssectional nature of this research. Despite the fact that efforts have been made to reduce the limitations to the minimum by “testing” if respondents would have difficulties with answering some of the questions, it is still impossible to say that everything is filled out truthfully. The survey is measured at only one moment in time. The perceptions of concepts like flexibility and trust are dynamic phenomena. Further research should make use of a longitudinal research design. The last limitation is the difficulty of measuring various effects. For example, organizational commitment is not always the direct result of flexibility, but also may be a result of the IT resources which enables flexibility. Also, further research should include if employees have a facilitated home workstation or not.

Conclusion This study reveals some new empirical evidence for the concept NWW. Based on the case study (N = 296), we were able to assess the positive impact of NWW on organizational commitment. The study is among the first to prove the relationship between NWW and organizational commitment and more importantly, it is one of the first providing empirical evidence on different leadership behaviors in explaining the organizational outcome of NWW. Our study contributes to the existing theory on NWW by focusing on the influence of empowerment, trust and steering on output as leadership competencies in the relationship between NWW and organizational commitment. The leadership competencies appeared to not have a moderating role on the relationship between NWW and organizational commitment. However, a direct and stronger influence of the leadership competencies on organizational commitment was found. If employees feel more empowered, trusted and are evaluated on output, their organizational commitment will increase “even” if the employees work at home or in flexible offices. The theory and empirical findings of this study calls for further elaboration in research. More contextualization of these data is needed with the use of more comprehensive theoretical models.

68

Jan de Leede and Paddy Heuver

References Adair, J. (1973). Action-centered leadership. NHRD network journal. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Adams, J. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 267 299. Agarwal, S. (1999). Impact of job formalization and administrative controls on attitudes of industrial salespersons. Industrial Marketing Management, 28(4), 359 368. Allen, T. J. (1977). Managing the flow of technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories, research, and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421 449. Avolio, B. J., Zhu, W., & Koh, W. (2004). Transformational leadership and organizational commitment: Mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of structural distance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 951 968. Baane, R., Houtkamp, P., & Knotter, M. (2010). Het nieuwe werken ontrafeld: Over bricks, bytes & behavior. Assen: Koninklijke Van Gorcum. Baruch, Y. (2001). The status of research on teleworking and an agenda for future. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(2), 113 129. Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: Free Press. Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. (2002). A typology of virtual teams: Implications for effective leadership. Group & Organization Management, 27(1), 14 49. Bernardino, A. F., Roglio, K. D. D., & Del Corso, J. M. (2012). Telecommuting and HRM: A case study of an information technology service provider. Journal of Information Systems and Technology Management, 9(2), 285 306. Blok, M., Groenesteijn, L., Schelvis, R., & Vink, P. (2012). New ways of working: Does flexibility in time and location of work change work behavior and affect business outcomes? Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation, 41, 5075 5080. Bogler, R., & Somech, A. (2004). Influence of teacher empowerment on teachers’ organizational commitment, professional commitment and organizational citizenship behavior in schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(3), 277 289. Bryman, A., Stephens, M., & Campo, C. (1996). The importance of context: Qualitative research and the study of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 353 370. Caillier, J. (2013). Does teleworking affect managing for results and constructive feedback? A research note. Canadian Public Administration, 56(4), 638 654. Cho, Y. J., & Park, H. (2011). Exploring the relationships among trust, employee satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Public Management Review, 13(4), 37 41. Ciulla, J. B. (1995). Leadership ethics: Mapping the territory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 5(1), 5. Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment and personal need non-fulfilment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53(1), 39 52. Dahlstrom, T. R. (2013). Telecommuting and leadership style. Public Personnel Management, 42, 438 451. Dalton, D., & Mesch, D. (1990). The impact of flexible scheduling on employee attendance and turnover. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 370 387. De Leede, J., & Kraijenbrink, J. (2014). The mediating role of trust and social cohesion in the effects of new ways of working: A Dutch case study. In Human resource management, social innovation and technology (Vol. 14). Advanced Series in Management. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

New Ways of Working and Leadership

69

Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611 628. Dorfman, P., Howell, J., Hibino, S., Lee, J., Tate, U., & Bautista, A. (1997). Leadership in Western and Asian countries: Commonalities and differences in effective leadership processes across cultures. The Leadership Quarterly, 8(3), 233 274. Eaton, S. C. (2003). If you can use them: Flexibility policies, organizational commitment, and perceived performance. Industrial Relations, 42(2), 145 167. European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (EFILWC). (2010). Telework in the European Union. Retrieved from http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/ eiro/studies/tn0910050s/tn0910050s.htm. Accessed on January 20, 2015. Fiedler, F. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Fleishman, E. A. (1995). Consideration and structure: Another look at their role in leadership research. In F. Dansereau & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Leadership: The multiple-level approaches (pp. 51 60). Stamford, CT: JAI Press. Friedman, S., & Greenhaus, J. (2000). Work and family: Allies or enemies? New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Gajendran, R. S., & Harrison, D. (2007). The good, the bad, and the unknown about telecommuting: Meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1524 1541. Golden, T. D. (2006). 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., & 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. (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., & 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 1421. Grover, S., & Crooker, K. (1995). Who appreciates family-responsive human resource policies: The impact of family-friendly policies on the organizational attachment of parents and non-parents. Personnel Psychology, 48(2), 271 288. Harpaz, I. (2002). Advantages and disadvantages of telecommuting for the individual, organization and society. Work Study, 51(2), 74 80. Hayes, J. (2014). The theory and practice of change management (4th ed.). Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillian. Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. (1977). Management of organizational behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Howell, J., & Avolio, B. (1992). The ethics of charismatic leadership: Submission or liberation? The Executive, 6(2), 43 52. Hoy, W., & Kupersmith, W. (1985). The meaning and measure of faulty trust. Educational and Psychological Research, 5, 1 10. Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (1993). Credibility. The healthcare forum journal. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kurland, N., & Cooper, C. (2002). Manager control and employee isolation in telecommuting environments. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 13(1), 107 126.

70

Jan de Leede and Paddy Heuver

Lee, S. Y., & Brand, J. L. (2005). Effects of control over office workspace on perceptions of the work environment and work outcomes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 323 333. Lyness, K. S., Gornick, J. C., Stone, P., & Grotto, A. R. (2012). It’s all about control: Worker control over schedule and hours in cross-national context. American Sociological Review, 77(6), 1023 1049. Mahler, J. (2012). The telework divide: Managerial and personnel challenges of telework. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 32(4), 407 418. Matzler, K., & Renzl, B. (2006). The relationship between interpersonal trust, employee satisfaction, and employee loyalty. Total Quality Management, 17(10), 1261 1271. Mayo, M., Pastor, J., Gomez-Mejia, L., & Cruz, C. (2009). Why some firms adopt telecommuting while other do not: A contingency perspective. Human Resource Management, 48(6), 917 939. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, J. A. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application. London: Sage. Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14(2), 224 247. Ng, T. W. H., Butts, M. M., Vandenberg, R. J., Dejoy, D. M., & Wilson, M. G. (2006). Effects of management communication, opportunity for learning, and work schedule flexibility on organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(3), 474 489. Nijp, H. H., Beckers, D. G. J., Geurts, S. A. E., Tucker, P., & Kompier, M. A. J. (2012). Systematic review on the association between employee worktime control and work nonwork balance, health and well-being, and job-related outcomes. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 38(4), 299 313. Offstein, E., Morwick, J., & Koskinen, L. (2010). Making telework work: Leading people and leveraging technology for competitive advantage. Strategic HR Review, 9(2), 32 37. Oliver, R. L., & Anderson, E. (1995). Behavior- and outcome-based sales control systems: Evidence and consequences of pure-form and hybrid governance. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 15(4), 1 15. Ouchi, W. (1978). The transmission of control through organizational. The Academy of Management Journal, 21(2), 173 192. Pare´, G., & Tremblay, M. (2007). The influence of high involvement human resources practices, procedural justices, organizational commitment, and citizen behaviors on information technology professionals’ turnover intentions. Group & Organization Management, 32(3), 326 357. Perry, R. W. (2004). The relationship of affective organizational commitment with supervisory trust. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 24, 133 149. Pitt-Catsouphes, M., & Matz-Costa, C. (2008). The multi-generational workforce: Workplace flexibility and engagement. Community, Work & Family, 11(2), 215 229. Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 698. Rodgers, C. (1992). The flexible workplace: What have we learned? Human Resource Management, 31(3), 183 199. Rodwell, J., Kienzle, R., & Shadur, M. A. (1998). The relationship among work-related perceptions, employee attitudes, and employee performance: The integral role of communications. Human Resource Management, 37(3 4), 277 293. Rotter, J. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of Personality, 35(4), 651 665.

New Ways of Working and Leadership

71

Scandura, T. A., & Lankau, M. J. (1997). Relationships of gender, family responsibility and flexible work hours to organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18(4), 377 391. Shaw, R. (1997). Trust in the balance. San Francisco, CA: Fossey-Bass Publishers. Slijkhuis, M. (2012). A structured approach to need for structure at work. PhD thesis. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. The Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442 1465. Thompson, J. (2011). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory. New Brunswick NJ: Transaction Publishers. Thompson, C., Beauvais, L., & Lyness, K. (1999). When work family benefits are not enough: The influence of work family culture on benefit utilization, organizational attachment, and work family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54(3), 392 415. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. K. (2000). A multidisciplinary analysis of the nature, meaning, and measurement of trust. Review of Educational Research, 70(4), 547 593. Van Breukelen, W. V., Makkenze, S., & Waterreus, R. (2014). Kernaspecten van Het Nieuwe Werken en een checklist om deze in kaart te brengen. Gedrag & Organisatie, 27(2), 157 187. Virick, M., DaSilva, N., & Arrington, K. (2010). Moderators of the curvilinear relation between extent of telecommuting and job and life satisfaction: The role of performance outcome orientation and worker type. Human Relations, 63(1), 137 154. Vos, P., & van der Voordt, T. (2001). Tomorrow’s offices through today’s eyes: Effects of innovation in the working environment. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 4(1), 48 65. Wiesenfeld, B. M., Raghuram, S., & Garud, R. (1999). Communication patterns as determinants of organizational identification in a virtual organization. Organization Science, 10(6), 777 790. Winston, B. E., & Patterson, K. (2006). An integrative definition of leadership. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 1(2), 6–66. Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 4

Understanding Teamwork Behaviors in the Use of New Ways of Working Jan de Leede and Joyce Nijland

Abstract New Ways of Working practices like activity-based working and home-based work lead to different behaviors of employees. Due to these NWW practices, employees choose their own preferred times and places to work albeit to a certain extent and within certain boundaries. This might have an impact on the possibilities for teamwork. Therefore, we suppose that teamwork and teamwork behaviors might moderate the relationship between NWW and outcomes. Does teamwork behavior have an influence on the relation of NWW and productivity or organizational commitment? And how, is it a positive or a negative influence on these relations? This chapter reports the results of an explorative study on the relationship between NWW practices, teamwork behavior, productivity, and organizational commitment. Quantitative data from the questionnaire will illustrate the main issues: the complex linkages between the four components of NWW, the outcome variables, and the effect of different components of teamwork behavior. This chapter describes the issue of teamwork and provides new data on the actual use and effectiveness of the different components of teamwork behaviors. Keywords: New Ways of Working; productivity; organizational commitment; teamwork behavior; research paper

New Ways of Working Practices: Antecedents and Outcomes Advanced Series in Management, Volume 16, 73 94 Copyright r 2017 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1877-6361/doi:10.1108/S1877-636120160000016005

74

Jan de Leede and Joyce Nijland

Introduction Many organizations are applying New Ways of Working practices to become more adaptive and flexible for employees and customers (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002; Bijl, 2009; Blok, Groenesteijn, Schelvis, & Vink, 2012). Organizations need flexible, entrepreneurial employees who can make a difference. The rapid and constant changes in modern society and markets increase the need for employees to develop constantly to remain successful. Modern information and communication technologies have ensured that work is becoming space-time independent: many tasks and processes no longer has to be done at the same place or at specific times. IT enables time-space compression (Harvey, 1989). As a result, people work less at the same time in the same building which stimulates the use of the IT, internet, and social media. Thereby face-to-face contact is decreasing, that might have a huge impact on teamwork behaviors. In addition, traditional offices are no longer suitable for the way in which today’s organizations want to work. Teamwork behaviors will adapt concordantly to adjust to these changing structures and processes. These developments at the workplaces have emerged to the empowerment of employees and allow for more freedom in determining the time and place of one’s work (Blok et al., 2012). However, does this empowerment automatically induce new behaviors of employees? More specifically, does the introduction of NWW lead toward new teamwork behaviors? At face value, one may argue for better teamwork behaviors because workers can choose for their preferred workplaces and worktimes. That might be positive for their motivation and willingness to work together. However, one can also argue that with the introduction of NWW, some social relationships are being broken. Some authors warn for professional isolation (Golden, Veiga, & Dino, 2008), pointing to the risk that people feel to be out of touch with their colleagues. In response to the last argument, one may also state that teamwork may prevent the feeling of being isolated, just because they belong to the team. With all kinds of social and collaboration technologies, the team awareness might be increased (Andriessen, 2003), albeit that team members are working on different times and different places. Therefore, it might be interesting to search for evidence of the moderating effects of teamwork behaviors on the outcomes of NWW practices. Does teamwork increase the positive effects of NWW practices on productivity and organizational commitment or not? Can teamwork be seen as a countermeasure to reduce professional isolation? In short, it is important to know the implications of NWW practices for the teamwork behaviors of employees. The purpose of this chapter is to examine if teamwork behavior moderates the relationship between NWW and productivity or NWW and organizational commitment. The main research question of this study is: “To what extent does teamwork behavior influence the outcomes of NWW-practices, specifically ‘productivity’ or ‘organizational commitment’?” The impact of teamwork behavior will be fully understood on the relation with NWW and the outcome variable productivity.

Teamwork Behaviors in the Use of New Ways of Working

75

In this chapter the same definition of NWW is used as in the Introduction: “New Ways of Working are practices in which employees are able to work independent of time, place, and organization, supported by a flexible work environment which is facilitated by information technologies.” Along with this definition, the same four components of NWW are distinguished like in Chapter 3. These four components are (1) Teleworking, (2) Flexible Workplaces at Work, and (3) Flexible Working Hours, and (4) IT. Teleworking is defined as “a form of organizing and/or performing work, using information technology, in the context of an employment contract/relationship, where work, which could also be performed at the employer’s premises, is carried out away from those premises on a regular basis” (European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (EFILWC), 2010, p. 2). Flexible Workplaces at Work is defined as a “continuum of discretion concerning how frequently employees conduct their work away from the main work site” (Thompson, 2011, p. 6). It involves flexibility in the use of the location where work is conducted. This concept addresses all aspects of the physical work environment such as premises and facilities but also the work environment at home or elsewhere. Office concepts are included, like work areas furnished according to concept of “activityrelated work,” inspiring office environments which are set up as a home base and meeting place, and an open network environment that brings the “the outside world” inside (Baane, Houtkamp, & Knotter, 2010). Flexible Working Hours is defined as “having the ability to schedule flexible starting and quitting times, sometimes with a core-hours requirement” but also to have the flexibility in taking days off. The last component is IT and stands for “Information Technology.” The most important characteristics in this dimension are real-time availability and accessibility of information for all, technology that adjusts to the user, implementing web 2.0 software and the use of smartphones and laptops to empower employees to work together virtually (Baane et al., 2010).

Teams and Teamwork Behaviors Teams are part of our organizational life since long. In the last 20 30 years many work environments have been rearranged from individual work in functional structures into teamwork with the technologies that link team members into a workflow system. In the past, teams were supposed to be fairly stable. Many definitions assumed such stability. In general, team-based practices were designed with a focus on teams whose membership (a) was fairly stable over time, (b) was assigned solely or primarily to that team, (c) shared common goals, (d) performed in defined roles, (e) worked on fairly well-defined and consistent tasks, and (f) existed in a common location (Tannenbaum, Mathieu, Salas, & Cohen, 2012, p. 3). However, times they are a-changing. Such stable teams do exist still, but more often, people belong to more than one team, temporarily, working on different places, staying connected via technology. Since two decades or so, we see the rise of virtual teams, defined by

76

Jan de Leede and Joyce Nijland

Lipnack and Stamps (1997, p. 7) as a team that “works across space, time, and organizational boundaries with links strengthened by webs of communication technologies.” Team members are supposed to build connections with other team members in a short period of time, creating a good result. Team members have to switch more and more between aims, people, and tasks. A widely accepted definition of a team is the one summarized by Kozlowski and Ilgen (2006, p. 79): a team is (a) two or more individuals who (b) socially interact (face-to-face or, increasingly, virtually); (c) possess one or more common goals; (d) are brought together to perform organizationally relevant tasks; (e) exhibit interdependencies with respect to workflow, goals, and outcomes; (f) have different roles and responsibilities; and (g) are together embedded in an encompassing organizational system, with boundaries and linkages to the broader system context and task environment. Team working is best when there is a certain degree of task and outcome interdependence (Wageman, 1995). With high task interdependence, one needs the other team members in order to be able to carry out the individual task. With high outcome interdependence one needs the other team members to achieve the own individual goals. The two forms of interdependencies together represent the strongest incentive for team working. While task interdependence increases the need for cooperation, outcome interdependence fosters the willingness to cooperate. Because then there is an individual gain in cooperation. Individuals work in teams to achieve tasks that require collective action (Rousseau, Aube´, & Savoie, 2006). In work team settings, members’ behaviors may be divided into two main categories, namely the technical task-related work behaviors and the teamwork behaviors. The technical task-related work behaviors are behaviors that contribute directly to the accomplishment of tasks and are related to the technical aspects of the tasks. This chapter will not deal with these technical behaviors, but focus on teamwork behaviors. Teamwork behaviors cover all kinds of processes like communication, coordination, and cooperation (Rousseau et al., 2006). Given the collective and interdependent nature of the team task, team members need to interact, to share resources, and to align their activities. Therefore, two basic processes of teamwork behaviors are essential to understand teamwork: behaviors that are needed for a shared task accomplishment and behaviors that are needed for holding the team as a group together. In the words of Rousseau et al. (2006): the regulation of team performance and the management of team maintenance. The next step is to assess which competencies are needed for these teamwork behaviors. Many authors have developed this field of teamwork knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs), building on Baker and Salas (1992) initial work on teamwork KSAs. Here, we want to rely on the components for teamwork quality of Hoegl and Gemuenden (2001) and the Stevens and Campion (1994) taxonomy of KSAs for teamwork. The KSA requirements for teamwork, developed via a survey of preexisting literature, focus on interpersonal and self-management KSAs. The interpersonal KSAs incorporate dimensions of conflict resolution, collaborative problem solving, and communication. Self-management KSAs include goal setting,

Teamwork Behaviors in the Use of New Ways of Working

77

performance management, and coordination dimensions. Stevens and Campion (1999) also developed a valid test for measuring teamwork KSAs on the level of the individual employee. During interactions between team members, teamwork behavior takes the form of overt actions and verbal statements that contribute to the coordination demands of the team’s task (Rousseau et al., 2006). For example, a team member would be engaging in teamwork behavior when they steer their fellow team members toward on-topic conversations, suggest setting time deadlines for completing tasks, or attempt to resolve a conflict within the group. Teamwork behaviors can take several forms and include different components. Table 1 proposes a combination of the framework of teamwork behaviors of Rousseau et al. (2006) and the taxonomy of teamwork KSAs of Stevens and Campion (1994). It is not possible to make a sharp distinction between teamwork KSAs that belong to one and only one teamwork behavior and vice versa. Nevertheless, we propose that some KSAs mainly are relevant for specific teamwork behaviors. In the same table, we also propose our five components of teamwork behaviors: communication, mutual support, mutual performance monitoring, balanced contribution, and social team cohesion. These five components are derived from the concept of teamwork quality of Hoegl and Gemuenden (2001). The final step in developing our research model is to understand how NWW practices will influence teamwork behaviors and how teamwork behaviors will have impact on the relationship between NWW and outcomes such as productivity and organizational commitment. It is proposed that, to the extent to which team members collectively reflect on the team’s objectives, strategies, processes, and performance, and make changes accordingly (team reflexivity), teams will be more productive, effective, and innovative (West, 2004). As teams become more diverse in their constitution and functioning, team members must learn to reflect upon, and intelligently adapt to the constantly changing circumstances in order to be effective (West, 2004). Parallel to this, we may assume that if team members engage in NWW practices like flexible workspaces and flexible work hours, they can enhance cooperation and coordination by increasing team reflexivity. That enables them to overcome the rapidly changing environment and be more effective. However, team reflexivity is not the only relevant component of teamwork behavior in NWW. We propose at least five components to be relevant. As an aside, this is not a comprehensive approach. In this explorative study, we want to inspire other researchers to elaborate on this path. In the next section, some propositions are developed for each component of teamwork behaviors.

Components of Teamwork Behavior and NWW Practices In this section the five components of teamwork behavior and their relevance are described.

78

Interpersonal KSAs Conflict Collaborative resolution problem solving Regulation of team performance

Preparation of work accomplishment Task-related collaboration

Communication

Communication Mutual performance monitoring

Team adjustment

Mutual support

Psychological support Integrative conflict management

Goal setting and performance management

Planning and task coordination Balanced contribution

Work assessment

Management of team maintenance

Self-Management KSAs

CommunicationMutual support Social team cohesion

Jan de Leede and Joyce Nijland

Table 1: Combination of teamwork KSAs and teamwork behaviors including this study’s operationalization.

Teamwork Behaviors in the Use of New Ways of Working

79

Communication It is broadly recognized that communication is a fundamental component of teamwork. Communication is meant to exchange information, share ideas among team members, coordinate efforts, and provide feedback (Pinto & Pinto, 1990). Communication is not only the exchange of information, it is also about the right receiver and about the right interpretation, according to the intentions of the sender. Communication provides a basis for other factors that determine team performance. For example, communication is needed to coordinate team member’s efforts and knowledge (Han, Lee, & Seo, 2008), it is needed for a team to understand the collective missions (O’Connor, 1993), to be sure the team shares the same mental model continuously (Salas, Cannon-Bowers, & Johnston, 1997), and to facilitate trust within a team (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999). Nowadays more and more communication is done via digital means (e-mail, social media, collaborative tools, etc.). The Internet provides many options and opportunities for interaction and communication while almost bypassing entirely obstacles of physical distance and time. Therefore, it is measured how many hours people work in so-called virtual teams to measure the productivity and commitment in virtual teams. Hypothesis 1a. Communication between colleagues will moderate the relationship between NWW and productivity. Better communication will positively moderate the relationship between NWW and productivity. Hypothesis 2a. Communication between colleagues will moderate the relationship between NWW and organizational commitment. Better communication will positively moderate the relationship between NWW and organizational commitment. Balanced Contribution It is important to the quality of teamwork that every team member is able to contribute all task-relevant knowledge and experience to the team (Hackman, 1987; Seers, Petty, & Cashman, 1995). While not everyone should bring in, for instance, the exact same number of ideas, no one should be limited in presenting and contributing relevant knowledge to the team. In order to cooperate and to accomplish the team task, one has to rely on each other to bring the relevant issues into the team process. We suppose that this component of teamwork behavior is of increasing importance when applying NWW practices. Because when people work on flexible hours, at home and on flexible workspaces they see each other as team members less frequently. The rules and arrangements on each contribution to the team task should be clearer than before. We may refer to the virtual team literature that is also emphasizing the need for little role ambiguity, especially because the group identity of virtual teams may be hindered by temporal and spatial distance (Martins, Gilson, & Maynard, 2004). Therefore, the teamwork behavior “preparation of work accomplishment” should include explicitly the balanced contribution of each team member.

80

Jan de Leede and Joyce Nijland Hypothesis 1b. Balanced contribution will moderate the relationship between NWW and productivity. The more balanced contribution, the more positive is the relationship between NWW and productivity. Hypothesis 2b. Balanced contribution will moderate the relationship between NWW and organizational commitment. The more balanced contribution, the more positive is the relationship between NWW and organizational commitment.

Mutual Support The idea of teamwork is based on the idea of mutual support of the team members rather than the competition between them (Hoegl & Gemuenden, 2001). Competition between people can exert a positive influence on the motivation and performance of individual tasks, however, for interdependent tasks such as new product development, process improvement, and software development, cooperation or mutual support amongst team members is more important. Team members working on shared goals should try to support each other. Mutual support is needed, like showing respect, giving help and support when needed, stimulating ideas of other team members, and developing them further. On the other hand, if team members demonstrate competitive behaviors, this can lead to distrust and frustration within the team (Tjosvold, 1995). Both quality and acceptance of ideas generated by members of the team increase when members cooperate (Cooke & Szumal, 1994). Mutual support, therefore, is an important element of teamwork and is needed to be able to reach team goals. The better team members support each other, the more effective and efficient these goals can be reached. We may assume that mutual support is also of importance for teamwork in NWW practices. If people are working at a distance, they have to trust on each other that mutual support will remain at the same level like on face-to-face teams. Hypothesis 1c. Mutual support between colleagues will moderate the relationship between NWW and productivity. The higher the perceived mutual support, the more positive is the relationship between NWW and productivity. Hypothesis 2c. Mutual support between colleagues will moderate the relationship between NWW and organizational commitment. The higher the perceived mutual support, the more positive is the relationship between NWW and organizational commitment. Mutual Performance Monitoring Especially in virtual teams where team members do not see each other every day it is important that team members have enough “team awareness” (Andriessen & Verburg, 2004). Team members have to possess the information and knowledge about the current status and actions of the project and the people involved. The

Teamwork Behaviors in the Use of New Ways of Working

81

measurement of team awareness or shared knowledge might be difficult (Andriessen, 2003) because it points to such items like team mental model and team situation model. Here, we want to point to one of most important aspects of team awareness: the ability to track the performance of each other. We refer to this as mutual performance monitoring, which can be defined as “the ability to keep track of fellow team members work while carrying out own work to ensure that everything is running as expected and to ensure that others are following procedures correctly” (Salas, Sims, & Burke, 2005, p. 575). Team members engaging in mutual performance monitoring will be aware of how their team is functioning as a whole, and enable them to initiate backup behavior if needed (Salas et al., 2005). Furthermore, team members need to be situationally aware in order to know when to initiate backup behavior. However, as people have a limited overview of their complex environment, situational awareness should preferably be shared amongst team members (Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2000). Thus, a prerequisite for mutual performance monitoring is well-developed shared mental models, so that team members have a common understanding of other team member tasks, and how the team should reach their goals. Hypothesis 1d. Mutual performance monitoring will moderate the relationship between NWW and productivity. The higher the mutual performance monitoring, the more positive is the relationship between NWW and productivity. Hypothesis 2d. Mutual performance monitoring will moderate the relationship between NWW and organizational commitment. The higher the mutual performance monitoring, the more positive is the relationship between NWW and organizational commitment.

Team Cohesion According to Bijl (2009) social cohesion is expected to decrease when NWW is implemented. With teleworking and to a lesser extent with flexible work hours and flexible workspaces, the contact with the other team members might decrease and therefore it can be expected that these NWW practices negatively influence the social cohesion in a team. Maynard and Gilson (2004) found that a shared understanding is more difficult to reach in a virtual team than in a team who experience face-to-face contact. Team cohesion refers to the extent that team members wish to remain on the team. Mullen and Copper (1994) propose to distinguish between three aspects of cohesion: interpersonal attraction, commitment to the team task, and team spirit. If team members lack this kind of togetherness and social belonging and they show little desire to keep their team going, it is unlikely that cooperation and coordination will be intensive and productive. Mullen and Copper (1994) found that social cohesion is an important determinant of team performance. Based on this literature it can be assumed that social cohesion is an important issue, both for team

82

Jan de Leede and Joyce Nijland

performance and organizational performance. According to Mullen and Copper (1994) and Gully, Devine, and Whitney (1995) there is a moderate but positive relationship between cohesion and organizational performance. For this research, the definition used for social cohesion is a stable, sustainable team and close relations between team members (Raub, 1997). Hypothesis 1e. Team cohesion will moderate the relationship between NWW and productivity. The higher the team cohesion, the more positive is the relationship between NWW and productivity. Hypothesis 2e. Team cohesion will moderate the relationship between NWW and organizational commitment. The higher the team cohesion, the more positive is the relationship between NWW and organizational commitment. Teamwork Behaviors We suppose a reinforcing influence of these five components of teamwork behaviors when they occur together. For instance, better communication will lead to a higher level of mutual performance monitoring. Another example is that more balanced team member’s contributions will have a positive impact on mutual support and team cohesion. All these relations can also be the other way around. Therefore, we may state with Hoegl and Gemuenden (2001) that these teamwork behaviors will lead to a better teamwork quality. With the propositions stated above, we may formulate the following overall hypotheses. Hypothesis 3. Teamwork behavior will moderate the relationship between NWW and productivity. The better teamwork behaviors, the more positive is the relationship between NWW and productivity. Hypothesis 4. Teamwork behavior will moderate the relationship between NWW and organizational commitment. The better teamwork behaviors, the more positive is the relationship between NWW and organizational commitment.

Methods Sample and Data Collection The data for this study is collected from the same division of a Dutch organization in the financial industry as in Chapter 3. The organization implemented to a certain degree NWW in their organization. They moved into a new office that was fully reflecting the organization’s view of NWW. It is possible to work in flexible spaces, on flexible hours and to work at home, all supported by IT. This division consists of four departments with around 2,500 employees. A survey was distributed among

Teamwork Behaviors in the Use of New Ways of Working

83

Table 2: Sample characteristics. Gender Age

62% male, 38% female 6% born < 1955; 27% between 1955 and 1964; 37% between 1965 and 1974; 25% between 1975 and 1984; and 5% after 1984

Contract hours Tenure

77% work > 35 hours per week 28% > 25 years; 19% between 16 and 24 years; 17% between 9 and 16 years; 28% between 4 and 9 years; 8% < 4 years

the four departments. The total sample size involved 296 employees. The overall response rate was 12%, with 258 usable surveys. Only the middle management, subordinates, and office workers are taken into account. As we may observe from Table 2, this division has an ageing workforce (with one out of three older than 50 years) and quite a long organizational tenure (with almost 50% working for longer than 16 years). They employ mostly men and mostly working fulltime. Measurements NWW The construct of NWW consists of four components teleworking, flexible workplaces at work, flexible working hours, and IT. We may refer to Chapter 3 for the measurements of these components and the overall NWW-scale. The Cronbach’s alpha of NWW is 0.77. Organizational Commitment and Productivity These variables are measured in the same way as reported in Chapter 3. The Cronbach’s alpha of organizational commitment is 0.81 and 0.90 for productivity. Communication Communication is the first and maybe the most fundamental component of the variable teamwork behavior. In this study, communication is meant as internal communication between team members. Communication within the team can be spontaneously and informal, timely, precisely and useful. These four aspects are measured with four items based on Hoegl and Gemuenden (2001) and Weimar, Plaat, Goudbeek, Visser & Nugroho (2013), such as “we communicate often in spontaneous meetings, phone conversation, etc.,” “I am happy with the timeliness of the received information of other team members,” “I am happy with the usefulness of the received information from other team members.” In this survey the items are based on a five-point Likert-scale (1 = “strongly disagree,” 5 = “strongly agree”) to have a consistent answering scale which facilitates filling in the survey. The Cronbach’s alpha is 0.80. Mutual Support Mutual support is measured as the degree to which team members help and support each other in carrying out their tasks (Weimar et al., 2013).

84

Jan de Leede and Joyce Nijland

It may consist of behaviors like helping each other, respecting the suggestions and contributions of other team members and the degree to reach consensus. Mutual support is measured by six items, such as “the team members help and support each other as best as they can,” “discussions and controversies are conducted constructively,” suggestions and contributions of team members are discussed and further developed,” and “our team is able to reach consensus regarding important issues.” The Cronbach’s alpha is 0.88. Mutual Performance Monitoring Mutual performance monitoring can be defined as “the ability to keep track of fellow team members work while carrying out own work to ensure that everything is running as expected and to ensure that others are following procedures correctly” (Salas et al., 2005, p. 575). Team members engaging in mutual performance monitoring will be aware of how their team is functioning as a whole, and are willing to provide feedback to their co-workers. The variable is measured with four items, such as “I am willing to give feedback to the other members of the team,” “errors in the tasks of other members are specified in the team,” and “there is room to comment on the responsibilities of other team members.” The Cronbach’s alpha is 0.84. Balance of Member Contribution Hoegl and Gemuenden (2001) state the importance for teamwork quality of the degree to which all team members are able to bring in their expertise to their full potential. The construct is operationalized with three items, although we had to remove one item because of a low scale reliability. The two items are “the team recognize the specific potentials (strengths and weaknesses) of individual team members” and “the team members are contributing to the achievement of the team’s goals in accordance with their specific potential.” The Cronbach’s alpha rises to 0.73 when question 3 is deleted. Team Cohesion Team cohesion can be seen as the degree to which the team members perceive to belong together. With a high team cohesion according to Weimar et al. (2013) team members are motivated to maintain the team and there is team spirit. The construct is operationalized with four items, like “team members in my team have a strong bond,” team members are proud to be part of our team,” and “we are a strong team.” The Cronbach’s alpha is 0.89. Data Analysis The quantitative analysis consisted of three parts: (1) univariate analysis, (2) bivariate analysis, and (3) multivariate analysis. Univariate analysis is the simplest form of analysis. It describes only one variable. Statistical tests which are used are descriptive statistics such as mean, median, mode, minimum, maximum, standard deviation, kurtosis, and skewness. Univariate analysis is about the normal distribution. Therefore, the aim of univariate analysis is to analyze whether there is a normal distribution. The bivariate analysis is used for two variable relationships.

Teamwork Behaviors in the Use of New Ways of Working

85

This method is used if each individual has scores on two various variables. In this study it involves if NWW leads to a higher productivity, and more organizational commitment. The regressions are binary since the relationship is tested and whether the relationship holds for our sample. The correlation of the above-mentioned relationships is measured only if the test is significant. In this study the measurement scales are ordinal which means that Cronbach’s alpha is used to measure the correlation or indexes are analyzed. Multivariate analysis is based on tests with more than two variables, like whether variables of NWW lead to a higher productivity and more organizational commitment. In addition, it tests whether the moderator leadership has an effect on the relationship between NWW and productivity and on the relationship between NWW and organizational commitment (Dooley, 2009). The data was analyzed with SPSS version 21.

Results Descriptives and Correlation Analysis The bivariate correlations and some descriptives (variable mean and standard deviations) are provided in Table 3 for the NWW practices and outcomes and in Table 4 for the teamwork behavior components and outcomes Figure 1 presents the significant associations. Table 3: Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlationsa of NWW practices and outcomes. Mean SD Teleworking

Flexible Workplaces at Work

Flexible Working Hours

IT

NWW

Teleworking

1.58 1.47

Flexible workplaces at work

5.77 2.16

.303**

Flexible working hours IT

4.66 2.35

.529**

.401**

2.16 0.70

.517**

.412**

.591**

NWW

5.23 2.49

.778**

.700**

.837**

.747**

Productivity Organizational commitment

4.22 0.55 3.87 0.65

.107* .053

.057 .127*

.077 .156**

.153** .118* .107* .146**

a Correlations based on Pearson correlation analysis. *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level. **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.

86

Mean SD Communication

Balanced Member Contribution

Mutual Support

Mutual Performance Monitoring

Team Cohesion

Communication

3.61 0.65

Balanced member contribution Mutual support

3.83 0.69

.342**

3.91 0.62

.400**

.451**

Mutual performance monitoring

3.89 0.66

.398**

.485**

.598**

Team cohesion Productivity

3.65 0.76 4.22 0.55

.375** .309**

.438** .309**

.477** .321**

.454** .300*

.378**

Organizational commitment

3.87 0.65

.255**

.203**

.153**

.257**

a

Correlations based on Pearson correlation analysis. **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.

n.s.

Jan de Leede and Joyce Nijland

Table 4: Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlationsa of components teamwork behavior and outcomes.

Teamwork Behaviors in the Use of New Ways of Working

87

Figure 1: (a) Model of significant associations with productivity; (b) Model of significant associations with organizational commitment. Regression Analysis The direct effects between teamwork behavior and productivity are significant. The explained variance is R = 0.191. This means 19.1% of the variance in productivity can be explained by these variables: 15.5% explained by teamwork behavior, 1.85% is explained by NWW, and 1.42% is explained by the interaction between

88

Jan de Leede and Joyce Nijland

NWW and teamwork behavior. This shows that NWW and teamwork behavior have a small influence on productivity. We have to keep in mind that the effect of NWW on productivity is limited (1.4%), so the other variables can only have a little impact. However, the interaction effects between NWW and teamwork behavior on productivity are not significant. Based on these data we have to conclude that teamwork behavior is not a moderator between NWW and productivity. The direct relationship between NWW and organizational commitment is significant, however with a low R2 (.021). Because the relationship between NWW (independent variable) and organizational commitment (dependent variable) can be explained with a low percentage the effect of a moderating variable is difficult to assess. To determine if the relationship between NWW and organizational commitment is influenced by moderating variables, multivariate analysis was conducted. Results show that the relationship of the variables NWW and teamwork behavior on organizational commitment are significant. Also the interaction NWW and teamwork behavior is significant (R2 = .158). This means 15.8% can be explained by the mentioned variables on organizational commitment. Thereof 7.42% is explained by teamwork behavior on organizational commitment, 2.14% is explained by NWW on organizational commitment, and 6.41% is explained by the interaction between NWW and teamwork behavior on organizational commitment. This shows that teamwork behavior has the biggest influence on organizational commitment. Figure 2 presents the interaction effects of the different levels of teamwork behavior with the different levels of NWW on productivity and commitment. The highest productivity is realized when teamwork behavior is on a high level (3) and NWW is implemented at a medium level (2), according to the perception of employees. When NWW is implemented at a high level (3), the best solution would be a medium level (2) of teamwork behavior to realize the highest

Figure 2: Interaction effects of teamwork behavior on productivity and commitment.

Teamwork Behaviors in the Use of New Ways of Working

89

commitment. In addition, the data suggest that the highest organizational commitment is realized when teamwork behavior is on a high level (3) and NWW is implemented at a low level (1). When NWW is implemented at a high level (3), the best solution would be a medium level (2) of teamwork behavior to realize the highest commitment. However, we have to be careful here, because all these interaction effects are not significant in our dataset. Still, we present these data because they suggest a curvilinear relationship between NWW and outcomes. The interaction effects of the components of teamwork behavior have been calculated also, but neither of them were significant on both productivity and commitment. Direct significant effects could be observed, but no interaction effects. We may conclude that based on our data it is not possible to claim a moderating effect of teamwork behavior as a composite variable nor the individual components of teamwork behavior, such as communication, mutual support, balanced contributions, mutual performance monitoring, and team cohesion. A striking similarity between the different components emerged: the U-shape. For most of the components of teamwork behavior it turned out that the medium level of NWW was the best for productivity, while keeping the medium and high levels of the components of teamwork behavior. However, none of these were significant. The same we could observe for organizational commitment. Teamwork behavior interaction with NWW and organizational commitment reports a kind of U-shape. This implies that when NWW is implemented more than a medium level (2) the influences on organizational commitment with teamwork behavior strongly decline at all three levels.

Discussion Again we found some evidence for the curvilinear relationship between NWW and outcomes like productivity and commitment. The positive relationships between NWW and productivity and between NWW and commitment are significant correlations. However, they explain only a small bit of the variance in productivity and commitment. That might be due to the relative high scores on productivity and commitment and low standard deviations. However, based on this study we might also add that the low explained variance is due to two other factors: the curvilinear relationship and the context. Like Golden and Veiga’s (2005) and Virick, DaSilva, and Arrington’s (2010) claim for teleworking and job satisfaction, we suggest the same for outcomes productivity and commitment. The more NWW, is not the better. It depends on the number of days of teleworking, that is the case for productivity and it seems even more the case for commitment. We found no at least no significant moderating effects of teamwork behaviors for the different NWW practices. All our hypotheses suggest that more and better communication, mutual support, balanced contributions, mutual performance monitoring, and team cohesion will strengthen the relationship between NWW and outcomes. Nevertheless, these hypotheses were not confirmed in our

90

Jan de Leede and Joyce Nijland

study. For an explanation of these results we might refer to the clarifications made in Chapter 3: other contextual and individual characteristics, like need for structure (Slijkhuis, 2012) might influence the relationships. Here, one extra possibility is mentioned: the personality and his/her inclination to teamwork. Other researchers show that some personality types predict performance more than other types. A well-cited source is the study of Morgeson, Reider, and Campion (2005), who claim that Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness and Emotional Stability can predict teamwork performance. Our results suggest a direct influence of teamwork behaviors and to some extent a mediating relationship. However, the mediating role of teamwork has to be confirmed in a next study. See for the limitations of the study Chapter 3.

Conclusion The results show that teamwork behavior cannot be seen as a moderator between NWW and the outcome variables productivity or organizational commitment. All 10 hypotheses of teamwork behavior as a moderator were rejected. Despite the rejections of the hypotheses, the correlations suggest a direct influence of teamwork behavior on productivity and commitment. Therefore, revised models are suggested in which teamwork behavior is a mediator between NWW and the outcome variables. Based on the empirical research, it became clear that of all four components of NWW, only the relationship between teleworking and productivity, and IT and productivity are significant. NWW as a whole also shows a significant relationship with productivity. However, the explained variance is very small (1.4%). Regarding the relationship with organizational commitment, only flexible workplaces at work, flexible working hours, and IT are significant. NWW as a whole also shows a significant relationship with organizational commitment, but the explained variance is very small (2.1%). The results of the influence of the different teamwork behaviors indicate a curvilinear relationship: the amount of NWW seems only optimal for productivity and commitment to a certain level. We have to be very careful here, because these interactions are not significant. Nevertheless, for instance for social team cohesion the first indications are that on the moderate level of NWW it brings more commitment, and less for high level NWW. More or less the same indications we got for the other teamwork behaviors.

Future Research Implications Since this study is based on a cross-sectional design, we only could assess the associations between NWW and outcomes. Further research with a longitudinal design, albeit difficult to organize in the corporate world, is recommended to assess the causality. Furthermore, concepts like communication, productivity, and

Teamwork Behaviors in the Use of New Ways of Working

91

perceived flexibility are dynamic phenomena. A longitudinal research design offers the possibility to see how components like communication, productivity, and perceived commitment relate over time. For example, it is known that higher productivity is derived from organizational changes and IT investments and this effect increases over time. Another suggestion for further research is to further improve the measurement of the central concepts. For instance, the outcomes like productivity and commitment are based on the perception of the respondents. It would be interesting to measure productivity more objectively for instance by using financial outcomes of the organization. The same holds for commitment, it would be interesting to include objective measures like turnover, organizational tenure, etc. More importantly, the measurements of the context of the respondents could be improved by measuring the number of teams they work in, the amount of time per team, the degree to which they have a fully equipped home workstation and the nature of the collaborative tools they use.

Practical Recommendations Two main practical implications can be drawn from this study. The first recommendation is on choosing the right level of implementing NWW practices. Our results indicate that more NWW is not per se better. It seems to be wise to implement NWW practices to a certain level. The results confirm the positive outcome of NWW practices on employees’ productivity. This does not mean that organizations should immediately implement all components of NWW to increase employees’ productivity. The components teleworking and IT have proven to contribute to employees’ productivity. However, based on the data, it can also be concluded that flexible workplaces and flexible working hours do only at a moderate level contribute to employees’ productivity. The same applies for the link with organizational commitment. The results strengthen the scientific literature with a confirmation of organizational commitment as a positive outcome of implementing (components of) NWW. The components flexible workplaces at work, flexible working hours, and IT have proven to contribute to the organizational commitment of employees. Again, this study shows that teleworking does not significantly contribute to organizational commitment, only to a moderate level. That means that organizations should seek for the optimum, particularly on the optimum for the amount of teleworking. Finally, teamwork behaviors do have an influence on productivity and organizational commitment, they even do influence productivity or organizational commitment in a positive way more than NWW does. In other words, it is a useful strategy to introduce NWW practices while stimulating teamwork. That seems to be a promising strategy. Especially, it seems to be productive to foster communication between the employees with moderate and high levels of NWW.

92

Jan de Leede and Joyce Nijland

References Andriessen, J. H. E. (2003). Working with groupware. Understanding and evaluating collaboration technology. Berlin: Springer. Andriessen, J. H. E., & Verburg, R. M. (2004). A model for the analysis of virtual teams. In S. H. Godar & S. P. Ferris (Eds.), Virtual and collaborative teams: Process, technologies and practice (pp. 269 278). Hershey, PA: Idea Group. Baane, R., Houtkamp, P., & Knotter, M. (2010). Het nieuwe werken ontrafeld: Over bricks, bytes & behavior. Assen: Koninklijke Van Gorcum. Baker, D. P., & Salas, E. (1992). Principles for measuring teamwork skills. Human Factors, 34, 469 475. Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. (2002). A typology of virtual teams: Implications for effective leadership. Group & Organization Management, 27(1), 14 49. Bijl, D. (2009). Aan de slag met Het Nieuwe Werken. Zeewolde: Par CC. Blok, M. M., Groenesteijn, L., Schelvis, R., & Vink, P. (2012). New ways of working: Does flexibility in time and location of work change work behavior and affect business outcomes? Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation, 41, 5075 5080. Cooke, R. A., & Szumal, J. L. (1994). The impact of group interaction styles on problemsolving effectiveness. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 30, 415 437. Dooley, D. (Ed.). (2009). Social research methods (4th ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education Limited. European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (EFILWC). (2010). Telework in the European union. Retrieved from http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/ eiro/studies/tn0910050s/tn0910050s.htm. Accessed on January 20, 2015. 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 1421. Gully, S. M., Devine, D. J., & Whitney, D. J. (1995). A meta-analysis of cohesion and performance: Effects of level of analysis and task interdependence. Small Group Research, 26(4), 497 520. Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315 342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Han, H. S., Lee, J. N., & Seo, Y. W. (2008). Analyzing the impact of a firm’s capability on outsourcing success: A process perspective. Information & Management, 45(1), 31 42. Harvey, D. (1989). The condition of postmodernity. Oxford: Blackwell. Hoegl, M., & Gemuenden, H. G. (2001). Teamwork quality and the success of innovative projects: A theoretical concept and empirical evidence. Organization Science, 12, 435 449. Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organization Science, 10(6), 791–815. Kozlowski, S. W., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 77 124. Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (1997). Virtual teams: Reaching across space, time, and organizations with technology. New York, NY: Wiley.

Teamwork Behaviors in the Use of New Ways of Working

93

Martins, L. L., Gilson, L. L., & Maynard, M. T. (2004). Virtual teams: What do we know and where do we go from here? Journal of Management, 30(6), 805 835. Maynard, M. T., & Gilson, L. L. (2004). Shared mental model development in virtual teams: Take the good with the bad. Paper presented at the Academy of Management 2004. Morgeson, F. P., Reider, M. H., & Campion, M. A. (2005). Selecting individuals in team settings: The importance of social skills, personality characteristics, and teamwork knowledge. Personnel Psychology, 58, 583 611. Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychology Bulletin, 115(2), 210 227. O’Connor, M. A. (1993). The human capital era: Reconceptualizing corporate law facilitate labor-management cooperation. Cornell Law Review, 78(5), 899 965. Pinto, M. B., & Pinto, J. K. (1990). Project team communication and cross-functional cooperation in new program development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 7(3), 200 212. Raub, W. (1997). Samenwerking in duurzame relaties en sociale cohesie. Amsterdam: Thesis. Rousseau, V., Aube´, C., & Savoie, A. (2006). Teamwork behaviors: A review and an integration of frameworks. Small Group Research, 37, 540 570. Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000). The anatomy of team training. In S. Tobias & J. D. Fletcher (Eds.), Training & retraining: A handbook for business, industry, government, and the military (pp. 312 335). New York, NY: Macmillan. Salas, E., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Johnston, J. H. (1997). How can you turn a team of experts into an expert team?: Emerging training strategies. In C. Zsambok & G. Klein (Eds.), Naturalistic decision making (pp. 359 370). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Salas, E., Sims, D. E., & Burke, C. S. (2005). Is there a “Big Five” in teamwork? Small Group Research, 36(5), 555 599. Seers, A., Petty, M. M., & Cashman, J. F. (1995). Team-member exchange under team and traditional management: A naturally occurring quasi-experiment. Group & Organization Management, 20, 18 38. Slijkhuis, M. (2012). A structured approach to need for structure at work. PhD thesis. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. Stevens, M. J., & Campion, M. A. (1994). The knowledge, skill, and ability requirements for teamwork: Implications for human resource management. Journal of Management, 20, 503 530. Stevens, M. J., & Campion, M. A. (1999). Staffing work teams: Development and validation of a selection test for teamwork settings. Journal of Management, 25, 207 228. Tannenbaum, S. I., Mathieu, J. E., Salas, E., & Cohen, D. (2012). Teams are changing: Are research and practice evolving fast enough? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5, 2 24. Thompson, P. (2011). The trouble with HRM. Human Resource Management Journal, 21(4), 355 367. Tjosvold, D. (1995). Cross-functional teamwork: The challenge of involving professionals. In M. M. Beyerlein, D. A. Johnson, & S. T. Beyerlein (Eds.), Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work teams (Vol. 2, pp. 1 34). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Virick, M., DaSilva, N., & Arrington, K. (2010). Moderators of the curvilinear relation between extent of telecommuting and job and life satisfaction: The role of performance outcome orientation and worker type. Human Relations, 63(1), 137 154.

94

Jan de Leede and Joyce Nijland

Wageman, R. (1995). Interdependence and group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 145 180. Weimar, E. M. I. L. Y., Plaat, A., Goudbeek, M. B., Visser, I. J., & Nugroho, A. (2013). The influence of teamwork quality on software development team performance. Tilburg University, 12–32. West, M. A. (2004). Effective teamwork: Practical lessons from organizational research. Oxford: Blackwell. .

Chapter 5

Fostering Innovation: The Influence of New Ways of Working on Innovative Work Behavior Florian Moll and Jan de Leede

Abstract New ways of working (NWW) change some fundamental processes in the workplace. NWW practices like teleworking, flexible workspaces, and flexible working hours lead to different behaviors of employees. But does the employment of NWW practices also have an impact on the innovation behavior of employees? This chapter explores this relationship and uses qualitative data from case studies to illustrate the complex linkages between three components of NWW and IWB. Keywords: New ways of working; innovative work behavior; innovation; human resource management; qualitative research paper

Introduction This chapter explores the influence of “new ways of working” (NWW) on “innovative work behavior” (IWB). In the last decades, the rigid and bureaucratic nature of most western economies, dominated by efficient manufacturing and agriculture, has undergone significant change and evolved to a knowledge-centric service economy (OECD, 1996, 2013). The importance of human talent has increased tremendously as it enables organizations to share the vast amount of dispersed knowledge and to use it to adapt and innovate (Blok, Groenesteijn, Schelvis, & Vink, 2012; Gates, 2005). This development influenced the role requirements of many employees as they have to be available anytime and anyplace and need to cope with an increased information overload, making them even more important success factors (Bijl & Gray, 2011).

New Ways of Working Practices: Antecedents and Outcomes Advanced Series in Management, Volume 16, 95 143 Copyright r 2017 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1877-6361/doi:10.1108/S1877-636120160000016006

96

Florian Moll and Jan de Leede

Furthermore, investments in knowledge-based capital (such as software and databases) increased significantly throughout the western world (OECD, 2013) and developments in information and communication technologies (ICT) such as the pervasive access to the internet and social media (“the web 2.0”) have led to a digitally connected, collaborating and more individualized society. Individuals, especially the upcoming generations, have become used to determine and personalize a great deal of their daily life. These developments have, quite naturally, also arrived at the workplaces, caused a general flexibility of labor relations and led to the emergence and widespread implementation of NWW practices (such as teleworking, flexible workspaces, and flexible working hours). Another prominent development in modern economies is the ever-increasing importance of innovation for organizational success (Martins & Terblanche, 2003; Patterson, Kerrin, & Gatto-Roissard, 2009; Pisano, 2015). In a globalized world, organizations have to deal with global competition while customers can easily identify and evaluate a broad range of alternative products via the internet. In order for companies to protect their margins and market positions, product innovations are important to continuously keep differentiating from competitors. Process innovations, too, are important to make the production process more efficient and keep products on competitive price levels. Meanwhile, innovation is often considered to be the main determinant of organizational success and competitiveness (Thornhill, 2006). One way for organizations to become more innovative is to focus on utilizing the innovative potential of their employees (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2007), as a firm’s human capital can “develop organizational expertise for creating new products and services” (Chen & Huang, 2009, p. 104). In the organizational endeavor for becoming more innovative, it is therefore important to not only focus on organizational characteristics, such as an ambidextrous organizational structure (O’Reilly & Tushman, 2004), collaborative networks (Schiele, 2003), or early supplier integration (Schiele, 2010). The innovative efforts and behaviors of the individual employees are also important in realizing innovative performance (Campbell, Gasser, & Oswald, 1996) as innovations often evolve from ideas of employees (Patterson et al., 2009). Tapping the innovative potential of the individual employee and eliciting innovative behaviors, thus, has become more important than ever. Not surprisingly, practitioners and scientific literature paid extensive attention to this matter and already offered a wide range of practices and initiatives with regard to fostering employee innovativeness, such as staffing, training, participation, performance appraisal, and compensation (Damanpour, 1991; De Leede & Looise, 2005; Laursen & Foss, 2003). However, a potential influence of NWW on IWB remains surprisingly under-researched. Such a relationship between NWW and IWB appears conceivable as specific outcomes of NWW can be suspected to stimulate IWB. The employment of NWW practices has been found to lead to more autonomy and freedom (Jackson, 2002), higher employee commitment (Bijl, 2009), and increased communication among employees (Ten Brummelhuis, Bakker, Hetland, & Keulemans, 2012). These outcomes of NWW have been proposed to potentially positively influence a wide range of innovative behaviors. Perceived autonomy and freedom are suspected to lead to a higher sense of ownership and

The Influence of New Ways of Working on Innovative Work Behavior

97

control (Krause, 2004) which, together with an increased commitment, can make employees more inclined to engage in IWB (Dorenbosch, Engen, & Verhagen, 2005). Increased communication can be assumed to stimulate knowledge sharing and thereby positively influence IWB as a larger portion of the collective organizational intellectual capital is made available for and used by the individual employees (Mura, Lettieri, Spiller, & Radaelli, 2012). However, as the literature provides inconclusive evidence and the potential influence of NWW on IWB has remained largely unexamined, a significant gap still exists in our understanding of both phenomena. In order to use innovation-stimulating NWW practices and avoid NWW practices that impede the innovative potential of the employees, it appears promising to address this gap and add to our understanding of this relationship. Therefore, this study conducts a qualitative, exploratory analysis of employees’ perceptions of the effects of their individual use of NWW practices on their IWB. The chapter has the following research question: What is the impact of New Ways of Working on Innovative Work Behavior? The academic contribution of this research is twofold. By conducting an exploratory study on the influence of NWW on IWB, this study takes a first step in investigating the potential effect of NWW and thereby increases our knowledge and understanding of the many outcomes of employing NWW practices. This is all the more relevant for their relationship with IWB, as this potential impact has not yet been studied. Furthermore, by investigating the influence of the diverse NWW practices, this chapter adds to the understanding of the determining factors of IWB. Importantly, this study not only investigated positively related NWW practices but also searched for NWW practices that potentially impede IWB. Thereby, this study provides valuable input for both the scientific fields of NWW and IWB. The practical contribution of this chapter is that it enables practitioners and organizations, especially in highly competitive and innovative industries, to more deliberately stimulate IWB by implementing certain, highly influential NWW practices. At the same time, NWW practices that negatively affect IWB can be avoided or complemented by mechanisms that prevent negative effects from occurring. We may only refer to the discussion that arises from Yahoo CEO Mayer’s decision to forbid telecommuting in order to increase innovativeness. This ultimately enables a more effective and goal-congruent implementation of a deliberately chosen configuration of NWW practices. A better understanding of the relationship between NWW and IWB can thus support organizations in becoming more innovative by enabling them to more fully tap the innovative potential of their workforce.

Theoretical Framework Innovative Work Behavior In this study, innovation is broadly defined on an individual level as the creation and implementation of something new, such as ideas, products, processes, or

98

Florian Moll and Jan de Leede

policies (Damanpour, 1991; Schumpeter, 1934). Innovations can be broadly classified along two dimensions. The first dimension covers the extent to which an innovation improves a process or a product. Process innovations relate to improvements that affect, for example, manufacturing or administrative processes within an organization. Such process innovations include increased efficiency, decreased failurerates, improved service or process quality improvements. Product innovations, on the other hand, describe improvements of product attributes to, for example, better meet customer demands, achieve competitive advantages over products from competitors, or generally improve the product performance. The second dimension of innovations covers the extent to which an innovation gradually improves or radically changes an existing process or product. Innovations that do not affect the fundamental characteristics of a product or a process are called continuous innovations. A continuous innovation does not require extensive training or reorientation from employees or customers to understand and use the product or perform the process. While the performance or characteristics of the product or the process improve, the basic way of production and usage is sustained. Innovations that radically alter product or process characteristics, however, are referred to as discontinuous innovations. Discontinuous innovations improve a product or a process in such a way that it renders the previous version obsolete and actually replaces it with a new and radically different alternative. An example is the introduction of the mp3 player (such as the iPod), which, in contrast to its predecessor the Walkman, used digital technologies and radically changed the way in which music is purchased, stored, and consumed. Regardless of the type of innovation, in order for a company to realize a continuous stream of innovations, it is crucial that the individual employees are willing and able to innovate (Janssen, 2000). This is especially important in knowledgeintensive industries, where intangible assets, such as the ability to develop innovative ideas, are crucial. Furthermore, as the individual employees are closest to the customers and processes, they are more likely to recognize opportunities for improvement which might not be visible for employees in more distant functions that are formally responsible for innovation in the organization (Carmeli & Spreitzer, 2009). An interesting rule of thumb has been postulated by Getz and Robinson (2003), who found that “in practice, 80% of improvement ideas come from employees and only 20% come through planned improvement activities” (p. 134). In the light of this argumentation, it becomes obvious that solely relying on research and development (R&D) departments to entirely account for the development of innovations does not utilize an organization’s full innovative potential. Therefore, fostering an innovative workforce and stimulating every single individual employee to continuously engage in and successfully elicit IWB is crucial for organizations to successfully innovate and outperform their competitors. The employees’ contributions to innovation have been measured on many aspects, such as personality (e.g., Hurt, Joseph, & Cook, 1977), outputs (e.g., Axtell et al., 2000; West, 1987), and behaviors (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2010; Scott & Bruce, 1994, 1998). Given the goal of this study, some of these measurement aspects are not well suited. An exclusive focus on output does not necessarily reflect the actual innovative

The Influence of New Ways of Working on Innovative Work Behavior

99

behavior of employees as other factors such as a rigid, bureaucratic system, or an innovation-hostile climate might impede innovation (Imran, Saeed, Anis-ul-Haq, & Fatima, 2010). Furthermore, in knowledge-intensive populations such as in this study, valid measures of innovative output are often not available outside of R&D departments. Therefore, output alone might not properly reflect the extent of innovativeness of an employee. Personality appears not to be a suitable indicator of IWB either. While having innovative personality traits such as “being open to new experiences” is beneficial to innovation (Yesil & Sozbilir, 2013), it is not sufficient to explain the actual contribution to innovation on the workplace. To investigate whether NWW can influence IWB, a focus on an employee’s behavior appears most promising. Therefore, this chapter restricts its attention to actually exerted innovative work behaviors and borrows the definition from De Jong & Den Hartog (2010), who extensively studied IWB and developed a survey to measure an employee’s IWB on an individual level (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2010). They found IWB to consist of the four phases (i) opportunity exploration, (ii) idea generation, (iii) championing, and (iv) application. The first phase, opportunity exploration, describes the extent to which an employee is deliberately looking for opportunities to improve firm or individual performance. Such opportunities often are the product of unexpected external or internal developments or problems that need to be solved. According to Drucker (1985), opportunities can arise from seven sources: “unexpected successes, failures or outside events; incongruities between ‘what is’ and ‘what should be’; process needs in reaction to identified problems or causes of failure; changes in industrial and/or market structures; changes in demographics, changes in perception; and new knowledge” (Drucker (1985), as cited in De Jong & Den Hartog, 2010, p. 24). Idea generation, the second phase, refers to the development of actual ideas on how the improvement can be realized. According to Kanter (1988), successful idea generation is facilitated by an individual’s ability to consider opportunities or problems from different angles. He termed this ability “kaleidoscopic thinking” and emphasizes the importance of rearranging and differently combining known aspects into something new. This idea is empirically supported by Mumford, Whetzel, and Reiter-Palmon (1997), who found that the ability of rearranging and combining known aspects is one of the best predictors of creative achievement. Championing, the third phase, involves promoting the idea, reducing resistance, and seeking support by relevant people throughout the organization to facilitate and prepare a successful implementation. After a particular idea has been created, it needs to be recognized by those employees in an organization that possess the required expertise, resources, contacts, influence, and formal power to drive a successful implementation as the inventor of the idea often lacks these attributes. This is sometimes referred to as “coalition building” and becomes necessary as, even though a certain idea might appear promising, resistance can occur as it is often unclear in advance whether or not an idea’s benefits will exceed its costs (Kanter, 1988). The role of champions, therefore, is usually informal and especially requires recognizing an idea’s value and feasibility, identifying and involving the relevant and influential employees and stakeholders, communicating enthusiasm and

100

Florian Moll and Jan de Leede

confidence to “sell” the idea to them and thereby establish support and willingness to bring the idea to life (Howell, Shea, & Higgins, 2005). Furthermore, it is important to note that not only the original inventor of the idea can act as a champion, but basically any employee who is convinced of the quality of the idea and is willing to invest time and effort in driving the idea forward. The fourth and last phase, application, describes an employee’s efforts of actually implementing the idea and incorporating it into the daily operations. After the required support has been created and a formal approval of the idea has been given, implementation means to incorporate an innovation as a regular part of an organization’s processes or product portfolio (Kleysen & Street, 2001) and includes behaviors such as the development, testing, and modification of new products or processes (see, e.g., Kanter, 1988; West & Farr, 1990). Having discussed the four phases of IWB, it is noteworthy that the first two phases, opportunity exploration and idea generation, are more “creativity-related” while the last two phases, championing and application, are more “applicationrelated.” However, it is important to mention that, although the phases include quite different behaviors, they are not as distinct as it might seem. According to Dorenbosch et al. (2005), the four phases of IWB build on each other. Ideas, for example, have to be connected to opportunities that have been identified and engagement in the championing and implementation phases requires the prior existence of ideas. Furthermore, the phases can be “iteratively connected by feedback loops” (Messman & Mulder, 2012, p. 45), suggesting that, for example, the implementation of an idea may lead to the discovery of new opportunities or other ideas. Studies have indeed found all phases to be highly interrelated (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2010; Janssen, 2004) and indicate that, as already suspected by Scott and Bruce (1994), employees can be engaged in any combinations of the four phases in any order.

The Expected Influence of NWW on IWB Despite the surprising lack of empirical evidence, existing scientific efforts indicate that an influence of NWW on IWB appears conceivable because specific outcomes of NWW can be suspected to stimulate IWB. The employment of specific NWW practices has been found to lead to more autonomy and freedom (Jackson, 2002), higher employee commitment (Bijl, 2009) or higher engagement (Ten Brummelhuis et al., 2012) and better communication. Autonomy and perceived freedom appear likely to stimulate a range of innovative behaviors such as the generation, testing, and application of ideas as employees potentially perceive a higher sense of ownership and feel more in control of their job (Krause, 2004). This notion of a sense of ownership being positively related to IWB has been supported by Dorenbosch et al. (2005), who found that “a proactive attitude as ownership promotes the generation and implementation of ideas within the work context” (p. 139). In a similar way, commitment can be suspected to have an impact on an employee’s willingness and actually exerted effort to explore new opportunities, generate ideas on how to exploit them, act as a champion to promote

The Influence of New Ways of Working on Innovative Work Behavior

101

the idea, and finally apply it (Dorenbosch et al., 2005). They argue that employees who perceive HR practices (such as potentially NWW) as commitment-oriented, feel “more ownership for work-related issues beyond their immediate operational tasks and show more IWB” (p. 139). Increased communication among employees, finally, can potentially stimulate IWB as the increased digital and personal communication might create beneficial conditions for a greater access to different professional perspectives and the sharing of knowledge between colleagues. Knowledge sharing, in turn, can function as a mediator between an organization’s human capital and IWB as it “translates the organizational potential of intellectual capital into individual efforts” (Mura et al., 2012, p. 8). However, as deliberate research on the influence of NWW on IWB (especially with regard to the influences of the separate NWW core practices) is sparse and the scientific literature only provides inconclusive evidence, a significant gap still exists in the understanding of both phenomena and their relationship. Therefore, this served as impetus for this study to conduct a qualitative, exploratory analysis of the influence of the employment of NWW practices on IWB. The following section introduces the methodological approach of this analysis.

Methodology In this study, an exploratory multiple case study method was used to investigate the influence of NWW on IWB. Whereas both NWW in general and its three core practices separately (i.e., teleworking, flexible workspaces, and flexible working hours) have been the subject of extensive research, this has not been the case for their influence on IWB. Due to the lack of scientific understanding of this relationship, indepth interviews in the respective work environments of the interviewees that are designed to inductively develop propositions are better suited than experimental or quantitative methods (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2003). Sample Selection In order to ensure that the sample actually resembled a broader variety of interviewee characteristics and that the respective employees were knowledgeable about and working according to NWW, this study applied theoretical sampling (Strauss, 1987). The companies were selected based on their NWW reputation. Those that were willing to participate were invited to determine the employees that match the criteria of (1) being a white-collar or knowledge worker and (2) having experience with at least some of the three NWW core practices. Then the companies were asked to approach eligible employees and invite them to participate in the interviews. Participation was deliberately emphasized to be voluntary to ensure that the respondents were willing to deeply think about their answers and openly and honestly share their perceptions. By interviewing knowledge workers within multiple cases that experience different manifestations of the four-core NWW practices, this study sought to include a greater variation on the independent variable.

102

Florian Moll and Jan de Leede

Ultimately, the study conducted 12 interviews, which were distributed over four companies (a detailed description of the distribution and the hierarchical levels of the interviewees is depicted in Table 1). With this sample of 12 interviews, theoretical saturation was reached, “the point in data collection and analysis when new information produces little or no change to the codebook” (Guest, Bunce, & Johnson, 2006, p. 65); despite the respondents being in service of different organizations, interviews after the 10th did not yield significantly new insights and no new codes emerged from the transcripts. Thus, the sample appears to have included a sufficient amount of respondents to reach valid conclusions and inductively develop grounded propositions for further research. Sample Description In this study, data was collected from 12 employees of four companies. To achieve greater variation in NWW, industrial and organizational characteristics, this study included a diverse set of organizations. A description of the companies and their respective industries is depicted in Table 2 (the firm sizes are only roughly indicated to warrant anonymity). Measurements and Interviews The interview scheme was tested in a pilot interview. The questions concerning the four phases of IWB were grouped by the respective NWW practices. Respondents were asked separately for the effects of each NWW core practice on the four phases Table 1: Number of interviews among companies and hierarchical levels of the respondents. Company A Number of Interviews Hierarchical levels

Company B

5

3

2 Managers

2 Managers

Company C Company D 2

Total

2

12

1 Manager

5 Managers

3 Employees 1 Employee 2 Employees 1 Employee 7 Employees

Table 2: Description of the companies. Company A

Company B

Company C

Company D

Industry

Insurance

Municipality

Call-center for telecommunications

Software

Firm size

>5,000 employees

∼800 employees

∼300 employees

∼360 employees

7 years

3 years

5 years

NWW 7 years experience

The Influence of New Ways of Working on Innovative Work Behavior

103

of IWB. All questions consisted of the prefix “Does the fact that you ‘make use of the respective NWW practice’ have any effect on the extent to which you …?” and were complemented with the validated IWB survey items. For reasons of keeping the duration of the interview around 60 minutes, not all questions could be asked and, therefore, some had to be removed from the interview scheme. To investigate the effects of NWW on the opportunity exploration phase, the interview contained the first item by Kleysen and Street (2001) “… look for opportunities to improve an existing process, technology, product, service or work relationship?” As this question was often experienced to be difficult and many respondents did not exactly know what it specifically asked for, later interviews added the follow-up question “… the extent to which you search for and identify improvement potential?” This served to clarify the intent of the question, helped to stimulate answers, and kept the duration of the interviews limited. The other two items by Kleysen and Street (2001) (i.e., “… recognize opportunities to make a positive difference in your work, department, organization or with customers?” and “… pay attention to non-routine issues in your work, department, organization or the market place?”) did not yield additional information and were only asked if the first question did not stimulate any response. Furthermore, as Drucker (1985) identified seven sources for identifying improvement opportunities, a question concerning the sharing of knowledge about professional issues and improvement potential (i.e., “… share knowledge (donate or receive) in order to discover new opportunities?”) was added. The effects on the idea generation phase were examined with the items “… find new approaches to execute tasks?” and “… generate original solutions to problems?” The question “… search out new working methods, techniques or instruments?” was removed after the second interview as respondents perceived it to be literally the same question as the first item in this phase. The championing phase was investigated with the two items “… make important organizational members enthusiastic for innovative ideas?” and “… attempt to convince people to support an innovative idea?” The application phase, finally, was examined with the two items “… contribute to the implementation of new ideas?” and “… put effort in the development of new things?” The item “… systematically introduce innovative ideas into work practices?” was removed as respondents indicated this to be outside of their span of control and that the systematic introduction was to be done by a formally appointed employee, assigned to implement the new work practices. The last question of the interview was meant to be of a more general nature whether the respondent would like to add any further information that might have been missed so far and if anything remained to be added with regard to any perceived effect of NWW on IWB. The fact that almost no interviewee felt to have missed anything or wanted to add unaddressed information indicates that the selection of questions and the structuring of the interviews was sufficient to thoroughly examine the perceived effects of NWW on IWB. Ultimately, the duration of the interviews ranged between 26 minutes and 104 minutes. The average duration of the interviews was roughly 70 minutes and, in total, 13 hours and 42 minutes of interview recordings served as input for this study. As the interviews were conducted in Dutch, the Dutch translations of the original

104

Florian Moll and Jan de Leede

English items were checked by four other independent researchers and were reformulated until consensus was reached to not endanger the validity of the interview questions. The manager version of the questions is based on the same questions that the employees were asked. However, the managers were asked to not only report over their own perceptions, but to also describe in how far they perceive any effects of the NWW usage on the IWB of their subordinates.

Data Analysis This study followed the data management and analysis methods of Huberman and Miles (1994, pp. 428 441). To analyze the answers of the respondents, all interviews were recorded and transcribed. The interview transcripts were subdivided into smaller, more manageable pieces of information. To achieve this data reduction, this study used the qualitative data analysis & research software Atlas.ti 7 to conduct a series of coding steps, involving both a priori codes that had been deduced from theory and a posteriori codes that were induced from the interview transcripts. In total, the following three rounds of coding were conducted in the analysis of the interviews. In the first, open round of the coding process, this study used the following a priori codes. General information of the respondents was coded in eight codes (i.e., respondent identifier; gender, age, job title, department, tenure in years, weekly working hours and, if applicable, the number of subordinates). One code for each NWW practice was used (teleworking, flexible workspaces, flexible working hours). Finally, a priori codes were assigned to the effects of NWW on IWB; we used four codes to indicate a positive and four codes to indicate a negative effect (e.g., TW-OE means a negative effect of teleworking on opportunity exploration). A second round of open coding was conducted to validate the codes assigned in the first round and to also code each of the coded text fragments with an indication of the underlying reason for the effect (e.g., commitment, sense of ownership, or knowledge sharing with colleagues) to finally allow the identification of underlying rationales by investigating co-occurrences of these codes. Co-occurrences indicate the context in which the respondents referred to certain effects and thereby give insights on which certain effects are occurring together and might therefore be somehow related. Furthermore, in order to not miss anything and to stay responsive for discovering any effects and relationships that had not been expected in advance, the researcher remained open for a posteriori codes that emerged from the inductive, open coding process. In this second round, constant comparison was applied and all codes from the code book were considered for every new text fragment from the interview transcripts. This served to ensure consistency of the coding process and allowed an evaluation of the extent to which a new text fragment could be coded with already existing codes from the code book or if new codes had to be added. Additionally, constantly comparing existing and new codes provided deeper insights in the gradations and peculiarities of the codes. After the two rounds of open coding, a third round of coding was conducted to apply all identified codes to

The Influence of New Ways of Working on Innovative Work Behavior

105

all text fragments and once more validate the codes assigned in the first and second rounds. Again, constant comparison was applied and no new codes emerged in this iteration. In total, the three rounds of coding yielded 901 text fragments (quotes) and 167 codes. Finally, all identified codes were examined for groupings of codes with potentially similar meanings. This served the purpose of identifying code categories that unveil fundamental phenomena and rationales underlying the effects of NWW on IWB. After the coding process, the code co-occurrence analysis tool of Atlas.ti 7 was used to rearrange the data into tables and matrices to visualize the results and support the analysis. By constructing these tables and matrices, the relationships and effects as perceived by the individual respondents could be examined for any cooccurring codes and for any potential groupings or peculiarities. Finally, in the conclusion drawing phase, a distant view on the data was to be achieved to objectively analyze and interpret the identified codes and inductively develop valid propositions about the perceived effects of NWW on IWB. To increase the validity and the reliability of the study and make the conclusions less prone to interpretation bias, intercoder-reliability was sought after by having the steps in the data reduction-, data display-, and conclusion drawing phase cross-checked on randomly assigned transcripts by three independent researchers. Furthermore, one respondent was willing to also collaborate in this control step and discuss the coding and their reasoning. This control mechanism served to validate the identified codes and yielded only minor differences concerning the wording and assignment of the codes. All differences were discussed in a group of fellow researchers and consensus was easily reached. The conclusions drawn by the researcher, finally, were intensively discussed with fellow researchers, also being involved in NWW research, in a de-briefing session to further validate the findings of this study.

Results In this part, the findings of the interviews will be presented.1 Overall, the results indicate that NWW have the potential to both positively and negatively affect IWB and that the three core practices all exert rather distinct influences on especially the OE, IG, and CH phases, while the APP phase appeared to be only slightly affected by NWW. The main mechanism via which NWW affect IWB are the increased freedom for employees, through TW and FWH, in determining themselves their optimal working conditions which increases their ability to concentrate and increases their ability to engage in the OE and IG phases. Additionally, FWS positively influence primarily OE, IG, and CH by bringing together employees, stimulating communication and knowledge sharing among a broader variety of colleagues

1 To achieve a better readability, abbreviations will be used for the four phases of IWB (OE = opportunity exploration, IG = idea generation, CH = championing, and APP = application) and the three core practices of NWW (TW = teleworking, FWS = flexible workspaces, and FWH = flexible working hours).

106

Florian Moll and Jan de Leede

throughout the organization, and facilitating a snowball-effect of collective OE and IG. Thereby, FWS increase the collaboration of a greater number of potential innovators in the office space and ICT, finally, can serve to digitally connect them and make their knowledge visible and accessible. Furthermore, NWW in general were perceived to affect the mindsets of employees, making them more change-oriented and less likely to hold on to the status quo. In the following, these effects will be explored in detail and, for reasons of a better understandability and readability, this part is subdivided and the results are presented by the respective NWW practices. While this chapter aims to substantiate the findings with lots of citations, it is not the goal of the authors to provide respective citations for all of the findings. A more exhaustive elaboration of the findings including more quotes can be found in the original paper by Moll (2015). Furthermore, not always will the citations include completely exhaustive evidence of the findings that they substantiate. This is due to the fact that, although respondents indicated to perceive the effect as stated in the respective paragraph, it was not always clearly voiced in a nice statement and sometimes emerged from a series of open and closed follow-up questions.

Teleworking Teleworking, in general, appeared to have the potential to both positively and negatively influence IWB. Its effects primarily relate to the OE and IG phases, while effects on the CH phase were perceived as rather weak and no major effects were perceived on the APP phase. Positive Effects of Teleworking on IWB Respondents said that TW primarily enables them to effectively withdraw from the hectic workplace and to work in environments in which they are less prone to distractions, disruptions, and interferences. They state to be more relaxed, have a more open mind, and be able to better concentrate and focus on the tasks at hand. Respondents also valued the ability to do something not work-related for a while and that they can determine the exact circumstances of their work at home. The effects of TW on both the OE and the IG phases appeared to be very closely connected and were often based on the same reasoning. The respondents indicated that, at home, they are more likely to be undisturbed, better spot improvement potential and develop concrete ideas as they can see things more clearly, recall the workday and better think in-depth. … I get more space / freedom in my head. (…) Here [he refers to the office building], all the space is taken up by all the impressions that I experience. (…) The environment just disturbs with all these people sitting here and at home I have space, I see that as meditation-like, that you can see things more clearly. (…) Then the chances are that I see it much clearer and that I lose less by that pressure that is happening up in my head. (InsurEmp3) All the time someone comes in then you’re distracted. Tells a story. I think that, when being at work, I am distracted at least 2 3 hours per day. (MunEmp1)

The Influence of New Ways of Working on Innovative Work Behavior

107

Therefore, the option to telework was especially welcomed for tasks that require deeply thinking about something, such as generating ideas to solve a problem. Once improvement potential has been identified and when a general direction for ideas is clear, respondents indicated that working out the details of an idea and making it more concrete was more easily done at home. Here, TW tremendously helped as it provides the chance to be undisturbed and better recall the workday, think about it in-depth and generally enables employees to better concentrate, focus, think freely and work out the idea to a tangible improvement idea. … I can for example have certain ideas or that I have to do tasks or have to think about something for which I really need to think in-depth, that would never be possible here. (…) Then I can better sort things out and see them more clearly, or see the process more clearly. (…) I really need the sereneness to work this out. (InsurEmp3)

More than half of the respondents share the opinion that the late phase of IG requires solitude to really work out an idea and that this solitude was best and most effectively achieved while teleworking. The main reason for this is that colleagues perceive a greater threshold to approach colleagues that are currently working at home. I have tremendous sereneness here. I have a magnificent office, that’s not the point. But it is, my door is always open. That’s my policy. I have to be available for everybody. (…) [And at home] I am also available but people know that A) I am teleworking and B) that they will try to call me less frequently.” (SoftMan1)

Thus, it appears that the opportunity to telework allows employees to choose when to work in solitude and to actively withdraw themselves from distractions, disturbances, and impressions from the workplace. By increasing sereneness, TW allows for better concentration, focus, having an open mind and thinking indepth. This was ultimately perceived to positively affect both an employee’s ability to engage in OE and in IG. Based on these findings, we postulate the following proposition: Proposition 1. Teleworking supports employees to withdraw themselves from distractions and interferences, leading to a better focus and higher concentration. This enables them to better think in-depth to identify improvement potential and generate concrete ideas on how to exploit such potential. Thereby, teleworking is positively related to IWB by improving the ability of employees to engage in opportunity exploration and the late phase of idea generation. Besides a better focus, respondents also indicated that the ability and freedom to just do something not work-related for a while has a positive influence on IG. Thereby, respondents said to be more relaxed at home and be better able to get a more distanced view on one´s work which ultimately helps to develop more creative ideas and think out of the box. The inability to think out of the box was also twice referred to as a “strait-jacket.”

108

Florian Moll and Jan de Leede … sometimes you really look at things differently. When at work, I kind of sit in a sort of “straitjacket,” I sit with my colleagues behind my desk and it is quite different than working from home (…). I think it is a bit nicer, a bit more relaxed. (…) At home, I sometimes have the opportunity to, when I just cannot really progress, then I can do something else, no matter what, and after a quarter of an hour I think: Oh yes! And I go back and it works again. At the workplace you do not do this so easily. You are not as quickly doing something else (…). (MunEmp1) … when working at home, that they can put it aside for an hour, do something else and then continue an hour later. You do not do this here [at the workplace]. Here, when you are working, you just continue. So, there [at home] you have somewhat more freedom to put things aside and continue later, this gives always more freedom of the mind. (MunMan2)

These observations lead to the following proposition: Proposition 2. Teleworking supports employees to do non work-related activities, which contributes to a more relaxed attitude and a more distanced view on their work. This improves the ability of employees to think freely and “out of the box” which increases their ability to identify improvement potential and to develop more creative ideas. Thereby, teleworking is positively related to IWB by better enabling employees to engage in the early phase of idea generation. Furthermore, respondents indicated a lower separation between their work and their private life which ultimately leads to a greater likelihood of actively engaging in OE and IG, that is, thinking about improvement potential and possible ideas or solutions outside of the office. Closely connected to this, respondents indicated to feel a greater sense of ownership when teleworking, having a greater sense of responsibility and ownership and therefore being more likely and motivated to think about opportunities and ideas outside of their regular office. … because then I kind of feel like: I am really working independently, as if I was an independent entrepreneur. (InsurEmp3)

This entrepreneurial feeling of being responsible and the sense of ownership furthermore appeared to make employees exert more energy in actually looking for and identifying improvement potential, developing concrete ideas to take advantage of the opportunity and act as a champion to make sure that an idea actually gets the required support to be implemented. An influence of TW on CH was furthermore perceived to be caused by TW’s effects of making employees more relaxed, more energetic and increasing their ability to better focus and concentrate. This is voiced in the following quote: … that the energy and the ideas they get at home, that they share this here [at the office]. (MunMan2)

These observations lead to our next proposition: Proposition 3. Teleworkers are more energetic and perceive a higher sense of ownership and control for their work and therefore more actively search for

The Influence of New Ways of Working on Innovative Work Behavior

109

improvement potential, develop concrete ideas to exploit such potential and act as champions to create the support needed for a successful implementation. So, teleworking is positively related to IWB by increasing the likelihood of an employee to deliberately engage in opportunity exploration, idea generation and championing. An effect of TW on CH was voiced by InsurMan2, who perceived that employees feel more ownership for ideas that they developed alone at home, which ultimately makes them feel more responsible and exert more energy in creating support and making the idea popular. However, such an effect of TW on CH was only voiced by MunMan2 and InsurMan2 while most respondents did not perceive a significant impact. As the interviews did not yield an explanation for why this effect was only perceived by managers, this issue remains to be subject to further research and no proposition is based on the finding. With regard to the application phase, most respondents said that the planned application of an idea was beyond their immediate span of control and that this was the task of formally appointed employees. Furthermore, all but one respondent indicated for TW to not have any perceivable effects on APP. This is illustrated by the following quote: What I think is crucial with improvement ideas is that people come up with an idea but that the planning and the implementation of it is often dropped. So we have very many plans, many ideas and then nothing happens with them. You often need instruments such as revision meetings or a manager who says: What are you going to do with it? Which actions are you going to take? And when will you do that? You need that, a sort of mechanism, that has not so much to do with NWW. (InsurMan2)

Teleworking in its form of working on a third workplace may positively influence both OE and IG. In particular, in the case of shared work locations that bring together employees from different organizations, it was voiced that TW offers valuable input for exploring improvement opportunities and generating ideas. Due to working in diverse environments that are different from an employee’s regular work environment and by getting in contact with a great variety of other workers from related or different fields of expertise and seeing how they work and approach problems, teleworkers can have better and more diverse access to inspiration (e.g., more diverse perspectives and thinking patterns) and are stimulated to more critically question the status quo. … when you are sitting in a different, inspiring environment, you are seeing different things (…) and you think: Hey, why do we do this or that the way we do? (…) So yes, really sitting at another organization or collaboration helps, you can really get inspiration out of it. (MunMan1)

Based on this reasoning, the following proposition is formulated: Proposition 4. Teleworking on third workspaces enables employees to get access to external expertise and will lead to more knowledge and inspiration from

110

Florian Moll and Jan de Leede

others. Thereby, teleworking on third workspaces is positively related to IWB by increasing an employee’s ability to successfully engage in opportunity exploration and idea generation. Negative Effects of Teleworking on IWB Negative effects of TW that were voiced by the respondents primarily revolved around problems concerning decreased communication as a result of the risk of isolation from colleagues and the rest of the organization. When extensively using TW, respondents perceived to be less intensively communicating with their peers, both professionally and relationally, which negatively affected inter-employee relations and ultimately created isolation. Furthermore, extensive TW was perceived to increase the threshold of approaching (and being approached by) colleagues which, in turn, can again impede communication and lead to employees missing out on all sorts of important information and sources of inspiration. Similar to the positive effects, the negative effects of TW on the OE and IG phases were quite closely connected and often occurred together. When they don’t see you, they forget to include you in certain discussions. They need to regularly see you in order to think: Oh yes, actually she also needs to see the review; Oh, I have a question on how it went. When I am here at the location I get a lot of questions of colleagues like: How do you do this, how does that work in [another setting] (…). When I am not here, I don’t get these questions. (InsurEmp1)

Furthermore, respondents indicated to perceive a higher threshold to approach and include in the groups-processes their colleagues who are teleworking. Calling, is the experience in our team, is not done automatically. (…) There is the assumption, although you can see that it slowly disappears, but there is the assumption that you telework to work undisturbed and go through with your tasks. (MunMan1)

Respondents stated that due to the decreased communication, they would be less involved in knowledge sharing, not receive timely information on the latest developments and thereby not have up-to-date knowledge of the overall situation of their company. Ultimately, this was perceived as leading to a lack of important insights for OE and inspiration and input for IG. Especially the inability to participate in informal communication was perceived as problematic. … I think that through the informal consultations, that much more renewal, more appointments evolve than from formal consultations. Most ideas develop (…) here during the lunch break or at the coffee machine, walking with each other from one meeting to another. Just like: Hey, can’t we do this, or could we do that? Well, and this leads to a continuation and you can try to hitch on if you had not been part of it but that is different than having been a part of it from the very beginning on. (MunMan1)

Furthermore, when not being at the location, respondents indicated to be missing out on inspiration from their environment, not seeing and hearing other perspectives, not being stimulated to look from other perspectives at their work and

The Influence of New Ways of Working on Innovative Work Behavior

111

miss out on incidental communication. This lack of incidental communication and environmental inspiration, in which often, for example, information about problems, new knowledge or changes within the organization or the industry are shared and discussed, was also perceived to negatively influence an employee’s ability to successfully engage in OE and IG. The reason is that they lack inspiration and input and that a snowball-effect cannot take place, meaning that ideas cannot be picked up and be further elaborated or refined by colleagues. … then you immediately have everybody at hand and someone shouts something and that can evoke ideas from others again. And when I am at home then no one will pick that up. Or if someone does it here, this will not be picked up at home. (InsurEmp3)

Furthermore, the decrease in communication was also perceived to negatively affect one’s willingness and likelihood to engage in both the OE and IG phases due to decreased commitment. … actually, you need to be more present at the location than flexibly at home (…) because otherwise, you do not get to talk to your colleagues anymore. There is no communication, you get distanced from the organization. (…) Then you only do your work, do your thing but further, well, your commitment is absolutely gone. (CallEmp2) When they are here at the location, then they see more, experience more, hear more, which can be a trigger to develop improvement ideas. If someone is working at home for more than 2 days a week than it has a negative effect. [This is due to] the tie, the relationship with your employer and your team. And all the things that go on there. Such as the strategy, projects, developments, you create too much distance. (InsurMan1)

This negative effect on the relationships, ultimately, can again cause negative effects by further worsening the isolation, increasing the threshold to approach colleagues and supervisors and excluding an employee from important group processes such as knowledge sharing, brainstorming, sparring and the snowball-effect of picking up and refining clues and ideas from peers. Accordingly, the cumulative arguments lead to the following proposition: Proposition 5. Extensive teleworking can lead to the isolation of employees from their colleagues and their organization. Hence, they are less involved in communication, become excluded from group processes, do not receive up-to-date information, and thus lack inspiration and input from their colleagues. Thus, extensive teleworking can be negatively related to IWB by decreasing an employee’s ability to successfully engage in opportunity exploration and idea generation. Besides these negative effects on OE and IG, TW was also found to negatively affect the likelihood with which employees engage in the CH phase. Due to the greater isolation and the lower chance of being physically present at the same time and place, respondents indicated to be limited in the means of communication to use. As face-to-face communication cannot be relied upon to always be an option, respondents perceived it as more difficult to convey emotions and passion. This

112

Florian Moll and Jan de Leede

may lead to a lower willingness to engage in championing via digital means of communication and the postponement of championing until physical contact was established again. Often, however, respondents indicated to either forget to tell their colleagues and supervisors about promising ideas or opportunities and that an idea generally had to be perceived as more promising or important in order for them to digitally engage in the CH phase. This effect, furthermore, was amplified because respondents do not perceive digital communication to be as speedy and easy as compared to face-to-face communication. When physical contact is impossible, ideas cannot be shared as easily and especially conveying emotions, passion and making others enthusiast is experienced as very difficult if not impossible. Therefore, respondents indicated to be less likely to engage in the CH phase as it requires a lot more effort to write a document and share it. … what is nice is that, when you get an idea, that you can immediately share it. But there is nobody at your kitchen table. So then you need to write it out in full (…), so there are all kinds of thresholds in this. (InsurMan2)

Furthermore, the lack of informal communication that was induced by TW also affected the likelihood to engage in CH, as is illustrated by the following quote: Back then I worked half / half, I worked partly at home and partly at the office. And back then I talked to him [his manager] way more often. And then we talked about how work went, what had to be improved. (…) As a matter of fact, I did not really talk to him anymore when I started working from home full-time (…). (CallEmp2)

This lack of communication can also negatively affect the likelihood of an employee engaging in the CH phase as it deteriorated the relations and the contact among colleagues. Yes, that happens automatically. That’ why I always make sure to try to be at least one day per week [of her three-day workweek] at the office, precisely because of the contact. And I notice that, when I was not there for some time, the contact is getting stiffer. (InsurEmp1)

Negative effects of TW on APP were only stated by one respondent. She indicated to perceive that employees who extensively work at home are less likely to be actively contributing to and exerting energy in the realization of improvements as they are less present and less involved in the actual processes at work. According to her, the reason is a combination of decreased commitment and increased isolation from the group. I think that for a big deal of the implementation of improvements, we are still used to doing this with people who are at the location. So the physical, face to face contact, live being present, is considered to be very important. (…) I think that this is due to commitment. Availability and commitment. You are just not a part of the group. So the group that is currently here, (…) is busy with it, is planning things. And attaching and including people who are sitting at home, well, they just get to know it at some point. (MunMan1)

The Influence of New Ways of Working on Innovative Work Behavior

113

Thus, another negative effect of the risk of isolating teleworkers from the rest of the organization appears to be due to deteriorated relations among colleagues, a higher perceived difficulty of successfully conveying enthusiasm and exclusion from processes at work. This leads to the following proposition: Proposition 6. Extensive teleworking can, through decreasing the face-to-face contact with colleagues, deteriorate employee relations and lower the involvement in work-related processes. Thereby, extensive teleworking is negatively related to IWB by decreasing the willingness and motivation to engage in championing and to exert energy in the application of ideas. Consistency of and Closing Remarks on the Results of Teleworking Having identified both positive and negative effects of TW on IWB, it is all the more important to highlight that the respondents also stated to be very aware of the risks and to therefore try to actively align their personal TW usage in such a way that negative effects can be prevented. I usually make sure that I, at the times at which I am at the office, when I am [at the location], from the early morning until the afternoon I always sit in meetings to do these kinds of things [referring to the relational and interactional aspects]. Because I plan all these things on the one day that I am here. The other things [referring to things that can be done in solitude] wait until I am somewhere else. (InsurEmp1)

Being quite aware of the potential drawbacks of TW, 11 of the 12 respondents from the sample indicated to not be truly suffering from any of the negative consequences of TW themselves. The only exception was CallEmp2, who had no choice but to almost exclusively work from home and therefore was unable to regulate the extent of TW himself. Based on this argumentation, it appears plausible that the negative effects of TW on IWB are not deterministic and can be prevented by the employees themselves if they have enough freedom in determining their extent of TW. These findings indicate that employees utilize TW sensitively and primarily for tasks that require solitude and concentration. Furthermore, it appears that those who use TW extensively are aware of the dangers of isolation and therefore are more willing to deliberately engage in communication, knowledge sharing, and relation building when being present at the office. Therefore, we consider the freedom in determining the extent to which employees make use of TW themselves and keeping a healthy balance between physical and digital communication as a vital boundary condition for TW to not exert its negative effects on IWB, as is formulated in the following proposition: Proposition 7. The positive effects of teleworking on IWB can only be fully realized if employees have the freedom to determine the extent to which they engage in teleworking themselves and a balance is maintained between physical and digital communication. Otherwise, the positive effects will be weakened and can even become negative if teleworking is used to an extent at which it causes isolation.

114

Florian Moll and Jan de Leede

Figure 1 integrates propositions 1 7 and depicts the proposed influence of teleworking on IWB. Considering the consistency of the perceived effects of TW on IWB, it is striking that no big differences were observed between any cohorts of the respondents (e.g., employees vs. managers or company affiliation). One minor exception was the fact that managers seemed to feel that employees feel more ownership for ideas that were developed at home and are therefore more likely to actively champion them. This perception was not affirmed by any employees from the sample. Another minor observed difference was that one manager perceived OE to be more effectively performed at home while he perceived IG to generally be more successfully done at the workplace. Most respondents, however, felt that OE and the early phase of IG require interaction to receive information and spar with colleagues, whereas it is the late phase of IG, where ideas are to be finalized, that employees perceive to be requiring solitude. Another interesting exception is that one employee perceived a greater pressure to perform when teleworking. According to him, making use of TW had the effect that he felt a greater need to actively show that he works hard and “is still present.” In order to show this, he indicated that he was more actively and more deliberately looking for opportunities and developing ideas so that he would be able to share such identified opportunities and ideas with his supervisor.

Figure 1: The proposed influence of teleworking on IWB. Note: As the propositions that are developed in this study are based on qualitative data, the arrows in the conceptual model do not depict statistical correlations but represent the signs and directions of the proposed influences of NWW on IWB.

The Influence of New Ways of Working on Innovative Work Behavior

115

Flexible Workspaces In the course of the interviews, FWS appeared to have by far the strongest and most far-reaching impact on IWB of all NWW core practices. FWS appeared to be especially influential on the respondents’ abilities to engage in the OE, IG, and CH phases. The respondents did not voice any effects of FWS on APP, neither positive nor negative. Positive Effects of Flexible Workspaces on IWB Concerning the positive effects of FWS, the findings indicate that FWS are strong facilitators of communication and knowledge sharing and are beneficial to a wide range of innovative behaviors. FWS were perceived to drastically increase the contacts and collaboration among employees, not only within their departments but especially the inter-functional and interdepartmental contact and communication was said to have increased significantly. Besides providing access to a greater amount of more diverse knowledge, FWS were also found to positively influence general relations and collaboration and facilitate group processes such as knowledge sharing and collective learning. The primary contribution of FWS to both OE and IG appeared to be the fact that FWS stir up the functional silos and, by “forcing” employees to switch their workspaces on a regular basis, bring together employees from all around the organization that might otherwise not have gotten in contact with each other. FWS thereby appeared to drastically increase communication and knowledge sharing within an organization which, in turn, was perceived as crucial input for both the OE and the IG phases of IWB. In the first place, respondents indicated that, due to FWS, they have more contact with a greater variety of colleagues which they would have otherwise not. As opposed to fixed workspaces, FWS especially increase the amount of interdepartmental contact and lead to the development of larger intraorganizational networks. These contacts positively influence OE and IG as employees get access to more diverse knowledge of potential improvement opportunities and different professional perspectives. You get to also sit with other colleagues. So, instead of always sitting with product management, I also sit with Finance, or I sit with Control. And ultimately, you also hear how they engage in certain discussions and you think: Oh, I need to include this in the development of the product. I need to include them. And because you sit there, you shake hands with people, you are more likely to get in contact with them to refine a product or conduct a change because your network has just become so much larger than only the group that you are always sitting with. (InsurEmp1)

Furthermore, besides spatially bringing employees together, FWS were perceived to positively affect OE and IG by creating an environment that facilitates easy and speedy communication, in which employees are visible and perceive a lower threshold to actually approach their colleagues and actively engage in knowledge sharing. I started here in 2007 and (…) everybody had an own office and you had to make an effort to get to another location, another office, to engage in a conversation. [Now] this is an open

116

Florian Moll and Jan de Leede space (…) and people are walking to each other, discuss things or just go and sit next to each other just because it is beneficial to the respective tasks at hand. So knowledge sharing is an important benefit of FWS. (…) This happens automatically. Naturally. People just approach each other (…) which is impeded by fixed offices. (MunMan2)

Besides making it easier to approach colleagues, FWS were also said to increase the amount of incidental communication. This was experienced to positively influence OE and IG as employees get to hear and see input for both OE and IG without even being actively looking for it. Thus, merely by being present at the FWS, employees perceived to be receiving a greater amount of information that affects diverse functional and organizational aspects. Because you sit next to each other. (…) And when you sit among another team, then you also hear what is going on there, what kind of successes they celebrate or what miseries are happening there. I think that this is really good. Because, if you get to hear such things, you do look at it in another way, cause you don’t know their processes and you can quite quickly [say]: It seems illogical to me to … or it appears reasonable to me to … (InsurEmp2)

In addition to the increase in information sharing, respondents also stated to perceive a positive influence of FWS on the relations among colleagues, which again positively influenced the likelihood of employees engaging in interaction with their peers. You throw 10 strangers together and after 2 days they are friends. After 2 days (…) it is a group. That’s kind of the idea. You do the same kind of work and you have some solidarity (…) and you get a relationship. That happens quite quickly. You can actually talk to almost everybody. (CallEmp1)

Thereby, as employees get more in contact with each other and through the improved relations and the lower threshold of approaching each other, it was stated that FWS rather naturally lead to more group processes such as brainstorming, sparring and interactive discussions. In these consultations, respondents stated to exchange knowledge, share information, discuss work-related issues, and talk about recent changes and developments, all aspects which are valuable input for OE and IG. This effect is further reinforced by the fact that employees themselves can deliberately choose their working environment according to their respective needs. FWS provide the ability to just go and sit in the vicinity of those colleagues who have the knowledge and expertise that one is currently needing. Thereby, employees can easily influence their working environments and make sure that not only the workspace but also the surrounding colleagues contribute optimally to increase the chances for successful OE and IG. … they are collaborating more. (…) You can much more easily and more quickly connect. If I for example know that I have to approach a certain problem or process, and I see that Jantje is sitting there who is also working in this process (…) then I choose to go and sit at his block today. (InsurMan2)

The Influence of New Ways of Working on Innovative Work Behavior

117

This increased contact and communication, in turn, was consistently perceived to positively influence both OE and IG as employees get access to more diverse knowledge, are more up-to-date of recent organizational developments and generally have a better image and knowledge of the overall situation of their organization. Also that you hear things which are not directly intended for you but at a later moment in time become relevant for you. That you get a broader picture of what is going on, what forces are actually driving our organization. I think that this is good. You hear all the things that are going on there and that is important. (InsurEmp2)

Furthermore, respondents said that, besides simply having more knowledge, they also value the fact that, through the constantly changing working environments, they see and hear more which provides access to different and more diverse perspectives that allow them to look at their work, problems, and ideas from different angles. This ultimately enables them to better identify and analyze improvement opportunities and develop concrete ideas on how to exploit them. … because when people are using someone as a sounding board, you know, even though this person might not actually have to do with it, but just to gauge the feelings. And when you are always sitting to think about a certain process with the same team then, we are all limited in our thinking, that’s how it is, then you just stay in your comfortable network. Really to involve someone completely different, that is [done by] the FWS here. You can just break the circle and this does not need to be much, just enough to get you thinking. (InsurEmp2)

Based on the above reasoning, it was indicated that FWS and their impact on communication and collaboration greatly enhance the extent to which employees can get inspiration from the environment. In our team, as we don’t have fixed workspaces, you really sit with someone else every time and then you hear different stories. You get to see it from different angles, you get different aspects. So that is definitely an added value. I don’t know if this directly leads to innovation but you get more ideas and a widening of your perspective. (MunMan1)

Thus, the findings indicate that FWS greatly increase inter-functional and interdepartmental communication by bringing together diverse employees in an environment that facilitates easy and low-threshold communication. Ultimately, this provides employees with more access to diverse and up-to-date knowledge of the organization and important recent developments which serves as inspiration and input to engage in OE and IG. These findings lead to the following proposition: Proposition 8. Flexible Workspaces bring together a greater variety of diverse employees and, through providing an environment that facilitates easy (and incidental) communication and stimulates knowledge sharing. This gives employees greater access to other (professional) perspectives and up-to-date knowledge that may provide valuable input to discover improvement potential and to generate ideas on how to realize such potential. Therefore, flexible workspaces are

118

Florian Moll and Jan de Leede

positively related to IWB by improving the employees’ abilities to engage in opportunity exploration and idea generation. Furthermore, FWS were said to facilitate a snowball-effect of idea refinement. This means that, in the open flexible spaces, employees get in touch with each other and are more likely to hear from a greater amount and more diverse opportunities and ideas from colleagues all around the organization. The result of this interaction has often been perceived as continuous enticement of input from others and refinement or adjustment of ideas by peers who were not formally appointed to engage in doing so. The one entices a reaction from the other. And especially because you are sitting there all together, you get much more ideas than if they were all sitting alone. (InsurEmp1)

Another way in which FWS were perceived to contribute to improving OE and IG was that two respondents said to be better able to convene group-sessions in which brainstorming, sparring and snowball-effects can take place. It was voiced that, as it is much easier to set up teamwork, they are more likely to approach and gather those employees who they feel can contribute to a certain issue, quickly engage in short-term teamwork and then, after the issue has been worked out, disperse the groups again. Thereby, as FWS provide extensive freedom in determining the workspace and especially by making them available to all employees who can utilize them without a large administrative effort, waiting times or even reservation, FWS can facilitate successful OE and IG by enabling employees to more effectively and more efficiently initiate group processes. [Without FWS] you had to organize a real relocation, and a relocation from A to B takes about two months. (…) Relocating costs a lot of energy to organize all this. (…) Because you can do this more quickly, you can more quickly connect with each other to reach a concrete goal. (…) For short-term projects, you can relocate much more easily. We work together in this room for 2 weeks (…) and then we go back, separate again. (…) If I want to briefly discuss or debate with colleagues, then I am not so much inclined to do this in the department. Then we come and sit here [refers to the open space in which the interview was conducted], I get my laptop and we sit next to each other like: What do you have, what do I have? (InsurEmp1)

The positive perception of the ease and speed of engaging in short-term teamwork was confirmed by MunMan2, who stated that it was daily practice that FWS make employees more likely and willing to engage in teamwork when they feel that a certain colleague might add value in a certain issue. Thus, through facilitating the easy and speedy organization of teamwork and stimulating interaction and collective group processes such as mutual idea refinement and collectively learning from peers, FWS appear to entice interactive processes which are perceived to improve OE and IG. Therefore, the following proposition is formulated: Proposition 9. Flexible workspaces facilitate interactive group processes such as cross-contamination, collective learning, brainstorming and sparring with each

The Influence of New Ways of Working on Innovative Work Behavior

119

other and mutually refining ideas with peers. Thereby, flexible workspaces are positively related to IWB by increasing the ability of employees to engage in opportunity exploration and idea generation. Similar to the effects on OE and IG, FWS were stated to have a positive influence on CH that can basically be ascribed to the same reasoning as for the OE and IG phases. By bringing together employees from diverse departments, stimulating communication and by increasing the intra-organizational networks of all employees, respondents felt that the relations with their colleagues and their knowledge of them also improved dramatically. As a consequence, employees also get better knowledge of those key figures whom they would need to approach in order to actively champion an idea. Even more importantly, key figures are considered to be more visible and the respondents perceived a lower threshold to actually engage in championing and approach key figures with ideas and opportunities. … key figures are now sitting directly among the employees. So you can share ideas with them more easily. And as a manager, I used to have a separate office, and now I don’t have it anymore, I am just sitting in between here, and that makes it very easy for employees to share ideas with me. (…) You don’t need to schedule an appointment with me, you see whether or not I sit here. And you know whether or not I am on the telephone and you just approach me and ask: Do you have time? And that is something different than having to go to an office and have to ask the secretary: May I speak to the boss? (MunMan2)

This impression was shared by a manager, who said that the fact that employees and key figures share the same open spaces also contributed to the positive effect of FWS on CH by conveying signs of availability and approachability. You are more willing to do so. (…) People who are sitting in a booth behind closed doors give others the impression that they do not want to be disturbed. (InsurMan1)

Closely working together with key figures furthermore is said to have the advantage that employees get to know them better, which enables them to align their CH approach to the personal characteristics and peculiarities of the respective key figure, which again positively influenced the likelihood of actually engaging in CH. Because you know these people, you know what and how important it is, and that you include this in your proposal so that it does not become a problem later to get something done. (InsurEmp1)

The general increase in CH is enabled by the increased informal encounters between employees in the open spaces, it is perceived as much easier to communicate. Besides, respondents indicated that the increased interdepartmental contact among colleagues was especially beneficial for ideas that had a broader scope than only an employee’s direct functional area of expertise. By having more contactpersons to spar with and by being able to discuss ideas and opportunities, the findings indicate that this can serve as a pre-step to CH, allowing employees to better gauge the impact of an idea before deciding on whether or not to engage in CH.

120

Florian Moll and Jan de Leede If it is applicable for the organization, in whatever form, larger than your team, well, then FWS are substantially useful to gauge how it is going around you. (InsurEmp2)

An interesting remark of a manager is that, besides stimulating individual employees to engage in CH, FWS also increased the likelihood of successful CH due to an increased feeling of solidarity, a shared responsibility and higher commitment towards the work of one’s colleagues. … by meeting each other more frequently and by talking more often and in other ways, and here I am really talking about working flexibly, where you sit with this colleague in an office this time and the next time there are others sitting with you, that is a larger group that has support, that enthuses, that helps with implementing this kind of things. (…) My colleagues feel much more committed to it. I myself feel more committed to what the others are doing. (MunMan1)

In addition, it was indicated that it is not only employees who are more likely to act as champions, but that key figures themselves have better access to promising ideas on the workplace. The respondent stressed that, due to FWS, key figures are more likely to actively search for knowledge and pick up ideas and opportunities that are discussed in the open spaces. Especially they are hungry for knowledge and they get more in touch with it here [on the FWS]. (InsurMan1)

Thus, it appears that FWS can create a synergetic effect on CH by not only increasing the willingness of employees to act as champions but also by facilitating key figures in becoming more active themselves to walk around and look for good and promising ideas. Employees feel more comfortable in doing so as they can providently gauge the impact of an idea, have a better knowledge of the key figures, and may align their CH approach to the respective key figure in order to increase the chances of successfully creating support for an idea. Furthermore, by allowing for more incidental contact without the need for formally scheduling appointments, employees are more likely and willing to actively engage in CH. Therefore, the following proposition is formulated: Proposition 10. Flexible workspaces provide an environment in which employees are more likely and better able to approach and enthuse key figures with promising ideas. Furthermore, key figures themselves are more accessible and better able to identify promising ideas themselves. Thereby, flexible workspaces are positively related to IWB by better enabling employees to successfully engage in championing and making key figures more receptive. While having strong positive effects on all three previous phases of IWB, none of the respondents perceived any effects of FWS on APP. Negative Effects of Flexible Workspaces on IWB Aside from the many positive effects of FWS, the interviews also revealed that FWS can potentially have some

The Influence of New Ways of Working on Innovative Work Behavior

121

negative consequences as well. However, it was striking that only two respondents from the insurance company perceived FWS to negatively affect OE and IG. The first observation was that, after switching from fixed to flexible workspaces, one employee felt less solidarity towards his company and his colleagues. When I think back to the times where there were no flexible workspaces, then there was a more family-like atmosphere, yes, and I am really longing back for that. (…) Then you are a company together. Then you are together, everything you do, you do it for each other, you do it for the company, you do it to make it go well and because you have a stake in it. That is nice and you share all day long with each other. Now it is like: What am I doing this for? (InsurEmp3)

He perceived this to be detrimental for his OE and IG as communication got more superficial and he was generally less willing to invest time and effort in communicating at all. The reason was that he perceived his efforts to often be in vein as relation building was impossible due to the ever-changing colleagues in his direct vicinity. I also experienced it that I saw someone sitting there, that I introduced myself and then you have a small conversation about what I do, what he does, and then you find out that he wasn’t sitting there in the afternoon and never again. (…) That happened somewhat more often and at some point I thought: I am not going to do this anymore. (…) It takes me way too much energy so I do a step back. (InsurEmp3)

The second observation of a potentially negative effect of FWS on OE and IG was voiced by a manager. He indicated that the unavailability of a fixed workspace can potentially have negative effects on an employee’s ability to deliberately share knowledge or engage in group processes such as sparring and exchanging ideas. If, for example, there is a block where everybody is sitting and you want to share knowledge but you are late and the block is already occupied. Then you need to walk a bit further and go sit at the bar. Then you have just as much contact as if you were sitting at home. (…) Back then, you worked 40 hours and you always sat together. Now you work 40 or 36 or 20 hours on different places. So you really see each other less frequently. (InsurMan1)

Therefore, the downside of the fact that FWS can increase interdepartmental contact might be that, intradepartmental contact with direct colleagues might be lower. Based on the above argumentation, the following proposition is formulated: Proposition 11. Flexible workspaces can decrease the group cohesion, impede in-depth communication, and hinder knowledge sharing through increasing the spatial separation between employees and decreasing the frequency of regular contact. As this reduces an employee’s access to information and inspiration from the environment, flexible workspaces can be negatively related to IWB by impeding an employee’s ability to engage in opportunity exploration and idea generation. Although only voiced by a small minority of the respondents, this finding potentially reveals an important boundary condition of FWS. In order for employees to

122

Florian Moll and Jan de Leede

be able to share knowledge with their direct colleagues and to not disengage from relation building, it appears that, just like TW, a base level of regular physical contact and predicable connectivity is required at least on department- or team level to prevent the potential negative effects of FWS on IWB. This leads to the following proposition: Proposition 12. Flexible workspaces will only positively affect IWB, if a base level of regular physical contact and predictable connectivity is secured. Otherwise, flexible workspaces will, through causing superficial communication, weaker inter-employee relations and the inability to deliberately engage in knowledge sharing, negatively affect the employees’ ability to engage in opportunity exploration and idea generation. Besides these potentially negative effects on OE and IG, according to all respondents, FWS did not have any negative effects on neither CH nor APP. Consistency of and Closing Remarks on the Results of Flexible Workspaces Having examined the findings concerning FWS, it is remarkable that overall a very positive image was experienced by the majority of the respondents. The proposed influence of FWS on IWB is presented in Figure 2, which integrates propositions 8 12.

Figure 2: The proposed influence of flexible workspaces on IWB. Note: As the propositions that are developed in this study are based on qualitative data, the arrows in the conceptual model do not depict statistical correlations but represent the signs and directions of the proposed influences of NWW on IWB.

The Influence of New Ways of Working on Innovative Work Behavior

123

The answers of all respondents were quite consistent, no striking differences between managers and employees or any other cohorts were found, regarding the perception of the positive effects of FWS on IWB. Flexible Working Hours Flexible working hours, like FWS, were found to primarily exert a positive influence on IWB. The findings indicate that FWH especially contribute to the OE, IG, and CH phases, while its influence on APP is very weak. Negative effects were only sparsely voiced. Positive Effects of Flexible Working Hours on IWB When looking at the positive effects of FWH on IWB, it is striking that they primarily affect the mindset and mental condition of the employees. The respondents quite consistently indicated that the positive effects especially relate to the possibility to plan their working times according to personal preferences which allows for a better work-life balance and ultimately makes employees feel better and more energetic. According to the respondents, the freedom to determine their own working times enables them to combine private life and work and to engage in innovative tasks when they feel ready for it. This freedom creates energy and better circumstances to successfully engage in IWB. They feel able to choose the moment to deliberately think about a problem or, if opportunities or ideas appear, to reschedule one’s other tasks and immediately think or elaborate on the idea. Concerning the positive effects of FWH, it again appears that the effects on OE and IG are closely intertwined. Respondents indicated that by being able to plan the timing of their tasks, they deliberately choose the time at which they feel best for the respective task, which not only increases the likelihood that they actually do so but also positively affects the quality of their OE and IG. … by being flexible with regard to your working hours, you can plan your tasks in such a way that they can be realized in the concerted time. (…) I think it really helps as opposed to being from 9 to 5 at the office, that you can play a little with it. (…) You function the best at the moments in which you are ready for it, your mind is empty and you can focus. Whereas, when you kind of thought: I just don’t really feel like it … you know? Then you end up not doing anything this day, while, if you had stayed an hour longer in your bed, it might have just worked out well. (InsurEmp2)

Furthermore, FWH were said to significantly increase the feeling of perceived freedom, which gives employees a more open and flexible mind and thereby positively influences OE and especially IG. … by being able to more freely divide your time, you are not restricted to have your ideas in a certain period, it can be much broader and, through the flexibility, you can accomplish a lot more. (InsurEmp1) … working at the times when it suits you can make you more creative. (MunMan2)

124

Florian Moll and Jan de Leede

It appeared that time flexibility especially empowers employees to engage in innovative activities when they felt like it or, the other way around, they can spontaneously make time whenever they spot improvement opportunities or when they feel able to generate innovative ideas for known problems. … if you need to be creative on command it won’t work. So you are not creative on command. You are creative at the moment at which you have an idea. And that idea, you cannot say I have to develop ideas tomorrow at 12 o’clock. So making use of the time and the freedom gives more possibilities. (MunMan2)

Furthermore, FWH were often perceived to improve the physical and mental conditions of an employee, making them more energetic, more relaxed and enable them to better focus. In combination with the perceived ability to determine the timing of engaging in innovative activities themselves, the better usage of energy and focus was experienced to have a beneficial effect on OE and IG. Besides enabling to better engage in OE and IG, the combination of the above-mentioned effects was also said to positively affect an employee’s willingness to actually engage in OE and IG. Yes, also because people now are doing certain things in the evening, they perceive less pressure from the organization. And what I notice is that the more pressure (…) is applied by the organization, the less improvement ideas are coming in. So people need to experience a certain freedom and ease of mind to be able to think about improvement ideas. When I tell you, tomorrow between 9 and 9.30 you are going to work on improvement ideas (…) it is not going to work. (InsurMan2)

Finally, the availability of FWH was said to increase an employee’s willingness to exert IWB as a way of giving back to the organization for being granted the freedom. … by having the flexibility in time, if you have the freedom to choose your own moment, if you are not good at doing something at 10 in the morning, then you must not schedule this for 10 in the morning. So, employees who have the flexibility, they do not find it bad to finish something on Friday night or Thursday night or to follow through with an idea that they just had. So they give back. (MunMan1)

Thus, FWH were found to be perceived as far-reaching freedom as employees are facilitated in choosing the time at which they feel best for the respective task. Thereby, they can engage in IWB when they feel ready for it or can immediately and spontaneously commit to innovative behaviors whenever they identify improvement potential or are struck by an idea. Furthermore, this freedom was perceived to lead to a more open and flexible mind, make employees more energetic and more willing and able to actually engage in OE and IG. Based on these findings, the following proposition is formulated: Proposition 13. Flexible working hours allow employees to plan the timing of tasks and thereby to engage in innovative behaviors at most appropriate

The Influence of New Ways of Working on Innovative Work Behavior

125

moments. By this freedom, employees develop a more open mindset to identify problems, think about ideas and to deliberately make time whenever they spot improvement potential or when they feel able to generate improvement ideas. Thereby, flexible working hours are positively related to IWB by increasing an employee’s ability to engage in opportunity exploration and idea generation. The positive effects of FWH on CH were perceived to originate primarily from the increased energy that employees get from being able to determine themselves their work schedule that most perfectly fits both their professional and their private obligations. It was indicated that employees who feel more energetic are more likely to engage in the championing of promising ideas and convey their enthusiasm and their energy. When being enthusiastic yourself, you can convey it. (InsurEmp2)

Furthermore, employees who perceive freedom in determining their working hours are more motivated and willing to share promising ideas and exert more energy in distributing them throughout the organization. I am just more motivated. Motivated, like, GO, I have the privileges. I have them all and I hear from others, they really sit in strait-jackets in their work and they have to obey all kinds of things. Yes, I am then more willing to do more, exert more energy. (…) When I have the freedom which gives me the quietness to work in a relaxed way, then I am much more willing to do it this way [he refers to the question and means “making colleagues enthusiast about promising ideas”]. (InsurEmp3)

Positive effects of FWH on APP, finally, were not perceived as being direct. Rather, employees indicated that, by being more facilitated and supported by the organization in combining their work and private life and by getting a voice in aligning their work schedule to match their personal preferences, they feel more energetic, more positive, and ultimately are more inclined to give back to the organization in the form of driving the realization of promising ideas. You decide when to be busy and when not (…) which enables you to create a better balance in your work life balance. That is a very important aspect, I think that this alone already gives you more positivity and gives you more energy and that everything just goes a little easier. Let’s be honest, then you finish things way more easily, pick up things way more quickly. (InsurEmp2)

Therefore, the following proposition is formulated: Proposition 14. Flexible working hours provide employees with the freedom to improve their work-life balance which makes them more energetic, motivated, and willing to exert energy in creating support for ideas. This will make them more inclined to repay to the organization, driving the application of promising ideas. Thereby, flexible working hours are positively related to IWB by making

126

Florian Moll and Jan de Leede

employees more likely to engage in the championing and application of promising ideas. Negative Effects of Flexible Working Hours on IWB The interviews only very sparsely indicated the downsides of FWH. Some respondents perceived FWH to involve the danger of isolation from certain groups of employees as they are less frequently physically present at the same time which negatively affects the frequency of contact and the amount of colleagues with which they communicate. Effects of FWH on the OE and the IG phases were again closely connected. In the first place, when all employees are roughly free to determine the timing of their work, it becomes less likely that they actually work simultaneously and meet each other on a regular and predictable basis. That can sometimes be difficult because everyone works flexibly. That means that you have less moments with each other. (…) So you meet each other less frequently. (InsurMan1)

Furthermore, the circumstances at which colleagues meet are less beneficial to actually engage in communication, knowledge sharing and, for example, discuss improvement potential or exchange input for generating ideas. … when you are always working from 9 to 5 and your colleague works very flexibly, then you meet each other less frequently. (…) And the moments at which you can meet each other are much less the moments that suit you. That is most definitely a disadvantage. (MunMan1)

Besides the decrease in physical contact, respondents also indicated to experience detrimental effects on the extent to which they engage in knowledge sharing (with regard to improvement opportunities and ideas) and general communication. As the chance on miscommunication is perceived to be higher when digitally communicating (this effect will be elaborated upon in the next section), respondents said to be less motivated to share and communicate digitally, and that they prefer to communicate with colleagues who are physically present at the workspace. This can be negative when people are always working outside of regular hours and do not meet each other. Knowledge sharing has, to an important extent, (…) to do with meeting each other. Text in a document or text in an e-mail always has different layers. And you can read a text but when I read it, maybe I read it differently than you. And at the moment you discuss it, you are looking for agreement: Do we agree on this? Do we mean the same? And you need the conversation for it. There is no text without interpretation. (MunMan2)

All in all, based on the above observations, FWH were experienced to have a potentially negative impact on OE and IG as they comprise the danger of causing isolation among employees and impeding knowledge sharing and information flow. We suggest the following proposition: Proposition 15. Extensive and widespread use of flexible working hours can reduce the frequency of physical contact among colleagues and impede collective

The Influence of New Ways of Working on Innovative Work Behavior

127

processes such as knowledge sharing and interactive sparring about improvement opportunities or potential ideas. Thereby, flexible working hours can negatively influence IWB by decreasing the employees’ ability to engage in opportunity exploration and idea generation. Similar to the effects on OE and IG, FWH can have negative effects on CH for almost the same reasoning. As FWH can increase the isolation, make information sharing less speedy and requires more effort to actually convey the message via digital means of communication, it can negatively affect the likelihood with which employees engage in CH. As the threshold of approaching colleagues digitally was said to be higher, respondents indicated to be more likely to actually communicate with colleagues who are physically present. … you are more likely to, imagine you are working in a team, you will then be more likely to approach the colleague who is working at that moment, and then you are going to share with this one. So, A is not present, then we go to B. If B is not present, we go to C. (InsurEmp1)

It is this preference for communicating face-to-face with colleagues who are physically present, which causes the isolation of employees who extensively use FWH. Therefore, CH in a work environment in which FWH were extensively used, was said to be more planned and cannot be relied upon to be possible all the time. Employees indicated to prefer face-to-face CH and therefore to be less likely to engage in CH when they cannot physically meet key figures or colleagues. Therefore, successful CH becomes more difficult and requires greater alignment which ultimately decreases the likelihood that employees engage in CH when they do not have regular and predictable contact with colleagues and key figures. This leads to the following proposition: Proposition 16. Extensive and widespread use of flexible working hours can reduce the frequency of physical contact among colleagues and thus, as employees prefer face-to-face communication to convey emotions, decrease the likelihood of actively promoting promising ideas to colleagues or supervisors. In this manner, flexible working hours can negatively affect IWB by decreasing the employees’ willingness to engage in championing. Consistency of and Closing Remarks on the Results of Flexible Working Hours Similar to the findings concerning negative effects of TW and FWS on IWB, the respondents again indicated to be aware of the danger of especially isolation and therefore to take measures such as planning their working times in consultation with colleagues to prevent negative effects from occurring. So while FWH have the potential to negatively affect IWB by contributing to an increased isolation, it appeared that, as long as employees have the freedom to choose their working hours, negative effects are likely to be prevented. In the light of this finding, the following proposition is formulated: Proposition 17. The positive effects of flexible working hours on IWB can only be fully realized if employees (1) have the freedom and autonomy to determine

128

Florian Moll and Jan de Leede

their working hours, (2) can align them with those of their colleagues, and (3) maintain a base level of regular and predictable physical contact. Otherwise, the positive effects will be weakened and can even become negative if flexible working hours are used to an extent at which they cause isolation. Figure 3 integrates propositions 13 17 and depicts the proposed influence of FWH on IWB. Interestingly, besides the positive and negative effects of FWH, a further remarkable finding was that one respondent said to perceive FWH as an important precondition for exerting IWB. He stated that without the company enabling him to balance his work-life by offering flexible working hours, he was not willing to give back in the form of looking for improvement opportunities, generating ideas or creating support for promising ideas. The manager just acted difficult and then I am quite quickly done with it … (…) Then you might see improvement potential but you think *****, because last week I wanted to pick up my child and you did difficult about it. So look for it yourself, I am not doing it anymore. (CallEmp2)

When comparing the perceptions of the respondents, no large differences were found between any of the different cohorts. However, it was striking that

Figure 3: The proposed influence of Flexible Working Hours on IWB. Note: As the propositions that are developed in this study are based on qualitative data, the arrows in the conceptual model do not depict statistical correlations but represent the signs and directions of the proposed influences of NWW on IWB.

The Influence of New Ways of Working on Innovative Work Behavior

129

employees, as opposed to managers, generally were more positive about the effects of FWH. Managers generally did not perceive the effects of FWH on OE and IG as strong as the employees and they did not perceive any effects of FWH on CH. However, no contradictory answers were given.

General Findings

The Effects of NWW on IWB

In the previous sections, it was shown that all three core NWW practices were perceived to have individual and rather distinct effects on the four phases of IWB. However, it is remarkable that combined effects of NWW in general (i.e., all three core NWW practices being simultaneously experienced by an employee) were voiced by almost all respondents. These combined effects relate to the fact that the employment of NWW practices provides substantial freedom in determining the work environment (place and time) and forces employees to develop a more flexible mindset. In the first place, almost all respondents valued the fact that NWW facilitate them in positively influencing their conditions and the environment of their work. … competences of employees can very much be facilitated by giving them an environment in which they can work pleasantly. And what pleasantly is, is very different for one than for the other. And someone who has whining kids at home might find it much more pleasant to work at the office. Then, teleworking is not an option. So working flexibly is not a saint concept, it is about giving employees maximum freedom to do their work as well as possible. (MunMan2)

It is this facilitation that was perceived as freedom by the respondents. It appeared that this freedom has a positive effect on the extent to which they engage in IWB because employees feel less restricted and generally are in a better condition to be innovative. This bit of freedom, by having this freedom you don’t feel restricted, you are more likely to have creative ideas. (InsurEmp1)

By being facilitated and by being granted the freedom of NWW, respondents indicated to feel four distinct positive effects of NWW on IWB. First, it was said that the freedom leads to increased commitment and loyalty which, in turn, stimulates employees to actively improve their organization. … people who get the freedom to do this are happy about it and might feel more connected to the organization. A bit more loyal or so towards the organization. I think most people, and this can relate to process-renewal or that they think about new ideas (…). One will say: You know; I will just help you so that you can go on. Another one will say: I will stay for an extra meeting on organizational development or I make time to think with you about organizational development or about this and about that and I finish my work afterwards. (MunMan1)

130

Florian Moll and Jan de Leede

Second, the experienced freedom of NWW and the trust that it signals was said to elicit an increased sense of ownership and responsibility. This has, according to the broad majority of the respondents, a strong and positive effect on all four phases of IWB. Respondents indicated that, by being given the freedom to do their job as they see fit and being trusted to determine themselves where and when to do it, they indicated to feel more inclined to exert energy in identifying improvement potential and generating ideas to actually make the improvement happen. … because [my company] trusts me, I make sure that this trust is not damaged and that it all goes well. A bit of a feeling of responsibility, yes. (…) You feel more responsible and therefore you will also realize things. Because you are responsible for them. You have to make sure that everything goes well. So, if you are responsible for it, you are going for it. You will exert more effort to achieve it as opposed to when you are largely restricted. (InsurEmp1)

Based on these first two general perceived effects of NWW on IWB, the following proposition is formulated: Proposition 18. Through increasing the commitment and loyalty of employees and enhancing their sense of ownership and responsibility, the employment of NWW stimulates employees to exert energy in improving their organization by deliberately searching for improvement potential, generating ideas on exploiting the identified potential, creating support for promising ideas and driving the implementation. In that way, the employment of NWW is positively related to IWB by increasing the energy that employees deliberately exert in opportunity exploration, idea generation, championing, and application. Third, NWW was stated to have caused a lower separation between employees’ working life and private life. It was said that it had caused a change in the mindsets, that employees do not as strictly separate their work from their private lives and, thereby, are more likely to think about work-related issues (e.g., improvement potential and ideas) outside of the regular office (hours). Furthermore, it was said that, if employees are given the freedom and are being facilitated in working remotely, it would rather automatically lead to an increase in engagement in IWB while being outside of the official office building. This finding indicates that NWW, thereby, potentially increases the time periods in which employees deliberately engage in IWB. What I am doing now is, whenever I get that kind of ideas, I immediately fixate them [in my iPad or on Evernote]. Wherever I am. (…) In my opinion, this is not related to ICT. You can also do it on paper (…) but back in the days I never did that. In the past, (…), you went outside and work and private were completely separate. (…) [Meanwhile, the train has] also become a workspace! Yes, it can be in the train but it can also be, I don’t go camping, but imagine if I am at the camping. Imagine that I am sitting in front of my tent and I have a great idea. Now, I would write it down immediately and in the past I would have never done that (…). I experience that as very pleasant. (…) Because I still have the choice, I don’t have to do it. (…) yes, it is not an obligation. It is not imposed on us (…) it happens automatically. (MunEmp1)

The Influence of New Ways of Working on Innovative Work Behavior

131

This leads to the following proposition: Proposition 19. By decreasing the perceived separation between an employee’s working and private life, the employment of NWW expands the time periods within which employees engage in IWB and stimulates them to exert more energy in improving their organization outside of their regular office (hours). Thereby, the employment of NWW is positively related to IWB by increasing the intensity and the frequency with which employees engage in opportunity exploration and idea generation. Fourth, the concept of NWW was said to have another positive effect on IWB. Respondents perceived the increased freedom and the forced flexibility to be beneficial for stimulating IWB as it leads to develop a more open and flexible mind and ultimately a higher change orientation. Thereby, NWW were perceived to indirectly drive IWB as they create a mindset that makes employees more likely to engage in innovative behaviors such as questioning the status quo, looking for improvement potential and developing ideas on how the improvements could be realized. … by being flexible in your workplace [in this case, he referred to not only FWS but also to TW as he works at two locations], your role that you are not constantly sitting next to the same colleagues or the same colleague, and not always sit at the same desk with the same rubbish on it, that you are also becoming a bit more flexible in your head. (…) And I really believe that, at the moment you are forced to become flexible, that it is ultimately going to be applied to your work as well. That you get better in dealing with changing situations, doesn’t count for everyone but I think this helps. At least for me it does. (…). With other people, you will have to engage in different kinds of conversations than with the colleagues you always have. (…) So you are forced to take an extra step and to not think: I have always been doing it this way. No, you know, just scan and see what works best at this specific place. (…) I think that you will be less likely to just stick to the standard. (InsurEmp2) … these people are already flexible in their heads. So they think more freely, they think less in beaten tracks and less inside boxes. Because they are free, they are allowed to determine things themselves or coordinate. They don’t have the mentality of: We need to start at 8, I do my thing and I go home. They are not thinking like this anymore. So they also think more easily and much sooner in terms of improvements and they are not afraid of failing. (…), I really think that this is the new way of thinking and doing. It is all a part of it. (InsurMan2)

According to these findings, NWW also affect the mindsets of employees and can thereby positively influence the full range of IWB, which leads to the following proposition: Proposition 20. By forcing employees to become generally more flexible and by taking away fixed structures, the employment of NWW stimulates employees to develop a higher change orientation, critically question the status quo and exert more energy in improving the organization outside of their regular office (hours). Thereby, the employment of NWW is positively related to IWB by increasing the

132

Florian Moll and Jan de Leede

likelihood and the ability of employees to engage in opportunity exploration and idea generation. One step further, two respondents indicated NWW even as a precondition for IWB. Without being granted the freedom of NWW, they would not be willing to give back to the organization, especially not in the form of exerting extra energy in exploring opportunities, generating ideas, championing ideas, and finally driving their implementation. That every hour you have contact about what course you are on, (…) if that happens, then you won’t get a single idea from me. (…) All the freedom I have is beneficial for the creativity and what not. (InsurEmp3)

However, as this perception was only shared among two respondents and was not voiced by the two other white collar workers that participated in this study, other factors such as personality traits are likely to also play a role in this effect and, therefore, no proposition is based on this finding. The proposed general effects of NWW are depicted in Figure 4 (propositions 18 20).

Discussion The purpose of this chapter was to investigate the influence of NWW on IWB. The findings of the 12 interviews that were conducted at four Dutch companies indicate

Figure 4: The proposed influence of NWW in general on IWB. Note: As the propositions that are developed in this study are based on qualitative data, the arrows in the conceptual model do not depict statistical correlations but represent the signs and directions of the proposed influences of NWW on IWB.

The Influence of New Ways of Working on Innovative Work Behavior

133

that NWW exert a diverse range of primarily positive and, to a lesser extent, negative influences on IWB. All three individual NWW practices were found to exert distinct positive effects on IWB. Teleworking positively influences IWB by providing employees with the opportunity to withdraw from the hectic of the workplace and work in an environment where they are undisturbed, more relaxed and can better focus and concentrate. Thereby, employees can better engage in especially opportunity exploration and idea generation as they can better and more freely think in-depth, see things more clearly and thus more effectively identify improvement potential and develop and finalize concrete ideas on how to exploit this potential. It is interesting that this reasoning appears to be based on the same rationales via which teleworking was also found to positively influence productivity (Bailey & Kurland, 2002; Be´langer, 1999). Teleworking elsewhere outside of the office furthermore provides valuable inspiration from different environments and enables employees to compare different approaches of performing tasks or organizing processes, which also enhances their ability to successfully engage in opportunity exploration and idea generation. Flexible workspaces increase both intra- and interdepartmental communication and interaction, and promote knowledge sharing. Furthermore, by increasing the chance to meet diverse potential innovators, FWS facilitate a snowball-effect of collective opportunity exploration and idea generation and lower the threshold of engaging in championing. Important to note is that the majority of FWS referred to in this study are open workspaces which allow for both regular and incidental communication between employees and thereby provide them with broad and upto-date knowledge of their organization. This new knowledge and experiences, in turn, process needs or incongruities between “what is” and “what should be,” serving as important input for identifying opportunities (Drucker, 1985). Furthermore, it allows employees to include more factors in their thinking and view problems from different angles which is an important precondition for generating new ideas (Kanter, 1988; Mumford et al., 1997). Thus, employees who extensively work on FWS have better access to more information that allows them to more successfully engage in opportunity exploration and idea generation. Furthermore, when FWS provide an environment that facilitates easy and low-threshold communication, increasing connectivity and enlarging the intra-organizational network of an employee, FWS positively affect the likelihood and willingness of employees to engage in championing. Furthermore, in open workspaces key figures themselves are more likely to incidentally get in touch with new and promising ideas; thereby, they can take a more active role in the championing process themselves. Flexible working hours exert a positive influence on IWB as they allow employees to plan their tasks and to choose the time at which they feel best for a given activity. This allows employees to engage in IWB when they are in the best condition to successfully develop innovative ideas. Furthermore, employees can spontaneously make time and commit whenever they spot improvement potential or suddenly think of an improvement idea. Besides improving the circumstances, the perceived freedom of temporal flexibility also positively affects the employees’ physical and mental conditions; by making them more relaxed and energetic,

134

Florian Moll and Jan de Leede

FWH facilitate them in in-depth thinking and using their energy to engage in opportunity exploration, idea generation, and championing. In addition to the positive effects of the separate NWW practices, NWW as a general construct also positively influences IWB in three distinctive pathways. First, by providing employees with substantial freedom and facilitating them in doing their work, NWW lead to an increase in commitment and sense of ownership and responsibility which makes employees feel more inclined to exert energy in identifying improvement potential and generating ideas. This finding is consistent with social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) pointing on the fact that employees who perceive their organization to improve and facilitate their work-life balance can be expected to reciprocate by giving back. This study suggests that putting effort to improve one’s organization by contributing to innovation is one such way of reciprocating the benefits that employees gain from NWW. Second, as NWW enable working anytime and anyplace, the separation between the private- and the work-life of an employee is actively decreased and traditional boundaries dissolve. This leads to employees voluntarily engaging in IWB whenever they spot improvement potential, regardless time or place (e.g., while being at home, while commuting or even while on vacation). Thereby, NWW enlarge the effective timeframe in which employees engage in IWB. Third, by forcing a certain degree of flexibility from an employee and by dissolving fixed structures at the workplaces, employees develop a more flexible mind, a higher change orientation and a more critical attitude towards the status quo. This finding is interesting because it closely resembles the effects of the personality trait openness to experiences on IWB (Yesil & Sozbilir, 2013) and suggests that employees who work according to NWW are generally more open and positive towards looking for change and innovation. Whether NWW increases this personality trait or only has similar effects, however, cannot be answered based on this study. Besides the positive effects, the findings indicate that NWW also comprise some important drawbacks. However, it is highly interesting that, while the separate practices all exert rather diverse positive effects, the negative effects of the three NWW practices are very similar. The main negative effects of NWW on IWB all revolve around the threat of professional or social isolation (Golden, Veiga, & Dino, 2008). As extensive usage of NWW increases the spatial and temporal separation of employees, they are less visible at the workplace and are more likely to become isolated from their organization and their colleagues. Thereby, employees who extensively use NWW are likely to be less involved in communication, miss out important information, and become excluded from group processes. As a consequence, they do not receive up-to-date information and do not have access to inspiration from their environments and colleagues. Furthermore, isolation deteriorates interpersonal relationships and social cohesion. Thereby, it impedes in-depth communication and collective processes (such as knowledge sharing or interactive sparring about opportunities and ideas) which ultimately may negatively affect an employee’s ability and willingness to engage in opportunity exploration, idea generation, and the championing of promising ideas. Thus, having found both positive and negative effects, the findings of this study clearly indicate that it is the extent of NWW usage that is pivotal and that certain

The Influence of New Ways of Working on Innovative Work Behavior

135

boundary conditions are required to be met for NWW to stimulate IWB and not exert its negative effects. As isolation is a core theme and common denominator of many negative effects, maintaining a base level of predictable and regular physical contact and communication is an important boundary condition for NWW to positively influence IWB. This finding is in accordance with Bailey and Kurland (2002), who postulated that especially teleworking can lead to professional and social isolation as employees are less visible on the workspace and miss out on both formal and informal information. Only when employees have sufficient contact and physically engage in relation building, knowledge and information sharing and participate in interactive processes (e.g., sparring, brainstorming and collective idea refinement) it is possible to fully reap the benefits of NWW on IWB. This balance, however, remains misty and appears to lie within a startlingly wide continuum. While, for example, some respondents perceive the negative effects of teleworking can be prevented by being present at the office only once a week, others said that the detrimental effects on IWB immediately appeared from the first day onwards and gradually increased with the extent of teleworking. The results from this study, thus, do not allow to pinpoint and exactly quantify this “perfect balance.” Although not providing a clear-cut indication of its optimal extent, existing scientific efforts suggest that extensive teleworking of more than 2 2.5 days per week (of a five-day workweek) does not generally have negative effects (such as on work-family conflict) but starts harming a teleworker’s relationships with co-workers (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007; Golden et al., 2008). As relational aspects and the need to belong (Baumeister & Leary, 1995) were voiced to be important factors for effective engagement in opportunity exploration, idea generation, and championing, it appears that, in order to positively affect IWB, the extent of teleworking usage should generally not exceed 2 2.5 days (or 40 50% of an employee’s total working hours). Furthermore, although having been examined only for the case of teleworking, it can be suspected that the threshold of approximately 40 50% of physical absence also applies to the other core practices. As flexible workspaces, flexible working hours, and extensive reliance on digital communication can also lead to physical absence, it can be suspected that the total physical isolation caused by the sum of NWW practice usage should not exceed 50% of an employee’s total working hours. However, the fact that the perceptions of the respondents that participated in this study varied considerably might be an indication that no universal optimum exists and that the optimal extent of NWW usage differs between organizations, types of the jobs and personalities. Finally, another interesting insight is that the effect of NWW on the type of innovation (i.e., process vs. product and continuous vs. disruptive) did not seem to be clear and straight-forward. While some respondents voiced that NWW would only affect process innovations, others indicated the very opposite. A possible explanation is that this is due to the diverse functional backgrounds and especially the areas of expertise of the respective respondent. People being close to processes indicated to primarily perceive the effects of NWW to affect process innovations and employees working closely with products often indicated the opposite. In addition, with regard to the degree of radicalness of innovation, employees stated that

136

Florian Moll and Jan de Leede

no clear effect was perceived. It gives support to the idea that, in order to stimulate large scale disruptive innovations, it appears necessary to bring together and closely connect employees from all around the organization, including people with diverse functional and departmental backgrounds being responsible for processes and products. Through the complementary effects of all three core practices, NWW can create such an environment that allows for effective cross-contamination and collective learning to actually affect organization-wide issues that go beyond the scope and area of responsibility of an individual employee.

Conclusion New ways of working have far-reaching and mostly positive influences on IWB. The initial expectation that NWW might positively influence IWB via increased commitment, a sense of responsibility and ownership and increased knowledge sharing was largely confirmed. More interestingly, however, the findings furthermore indicate that all three core practices of NWW have distinct positive effects on IWB. Teleworking, flexible workspaces, and flexible working hours complement each other and, provided that a sufficient level of regular and predictable physical contact is maintained, NWW constitute an environment that is highly beneficial to stimulating IWB. Flexible workspaces bring together diverse employees and create conditions that lead to interactive opportunity exploration and idea generation, stimulate collective learning and facilitate the extensive sharing and bundling of previously dispersed knowledge. Teleworking and flexible working hours then provide the opportunities and freedom for an employee to effectively and efficiently use this knowledge and work out concrete improvement ideas besides doing their regular work. Finally, flexible workspaces again enable and stimulate employees to collectively refine ideas, engage in championing and thereby make sure that promising ideas actually reach the relevant key figures to drive the implementation so that innovative ideas can be realized and benefit the organization. Furthermore, through forcing a general flexibility of the conditions under which employees perform their tasks, the employment of NWW contributes to stimulating IWB by affecting the mindset of employees and making them more flexible and change-oriented. However, besides these positive effects, the far-reaching freedom that is provided by NWW brings with it the inherent danger of isolating employees from their colleagues and their organization. As such isolation turned out to have detrimental effects on IWB, the extent to which NWW exclusively exert their positive effects is limited by certain boundary conditions. To avoid isolation, a base level of regular and predictable physical contact has to be maintained and digital communication must be used to an extent to which it does not replace or severely limit face-to-face communication. The findings of this study and other empirical evidence suggest the overall extent of NWW practice usage to not exceed 40 50% of an employee’s total working hours. However, this study furthermore indicates that employees are generally aware of the dangers and to autonomously take measures to prevent such a

The Influence of New Ways of Working on Innovative Work Behavior

137

too-extensive use of NWW practices themselves. Therefore, it is important that employees are given freedom in determining the extent and timing of their teleworking usage and can align their flexible working hours with those of their colleagues. If these boundary conditions are fulfilled and the use of NWW does not isolate employees from their colleagues and their organization, the benefits provided by NWW can be fully reaped while the drawbacks of isolation can be avoided. Thus, considering their influence on IWB, NWW are more than a collection of individual practices but form a coherent bundle in which teleworking, flexible workspaces, and flexible working hours complement each other and create a synergistically positive influence on IWB. Limitations Attributable to the constrained timeframe of this study, the sample size remained rather small with only 12 employees from four organizations. Even though saturation was reached and the sample size appears to be sufficient to draw valid conclusions (see “sample selection”), only a fraction of the employees of the participating companies was interviewed. Furthermore, the co-occurrence analysis with Atlas.ti 7 does not provide the same accuracy as a statistical analysis. While the sample was split by some possible cohorts which were visually examined for any differences (e.g., between managers and employees and between companies), the fact that no striking differences were found does not necessarily imply that no such differences exist. In order to gain more clarity and increase the validity, quantitative research with large sample sizes including many diverse organizations is required. For example, multi-level analysis might be a promising approach to gain deeper insights in eventual differences between managers and employees or between organizational characteristics (e.g., industry, size, strategy or the time that NWW have been implemented) and provide better knowledge of possible implications of such factors. Furthermore, this study used theoretical sampling to ensure that the participants were knowledgeable of NWW and its potential effects. However, as participation was voluntary, the findings might be prone to self-selection bias. As an antecedent of IWB is openness to experience (Yesil & Sozbilir, 2013), the fact that employees could determine themselves to participate might have led to a disproportionate percentage of participants who score relatively high on this personality trait, which would have caused a bias to the findings. Although the findings give little reason to assume that this is actually the case, it has to be taken into consideration and be subjected to further research that can rule out this potential bias. Implications for Further Research In the light of these limitations, some important directions for future research arise. The first is to quantitatively test the propositions that came forward from the findings of this study in a large sample across sectors and organizational environments. As this study was to explore the influence of NWW on IWB, the findings are based

138

Florian Moll and Jan de Leede

on the perceptions of a rather confined group of respondents. By conducting more extensive, quantitative studies with large sample sizes, the propositions can be validated or falsified. Second, in order to examine and validate the potential causal relationships as proposed in this chapter, it is necessary to perform multiple waves of measurements (i.e., longitudinal studies) including a control group and conducting pre- and post-tests. It appears promising to not only conduct studies with large sample sizes but to also conduct case studies of organizations that are about to implement NWW in the near future. Thereby, pre- and post-tests can be performed to examine differences between control and experimental groups. By conducting multiple measurements of the employees’ IWB scores before and after the implementation of NWW and by comparing groups that use NWW with those who do not, a better and more nuanced understanding of the actual causal relationship can be achieved. Thirdly, it appears promising to investigate the factors that determine the “optimal extent” of NWW usage. Understanding how to configure the three core practices of NWW would ultimately contribute to creating the most optimal conditions for reaping the benefits of NWW on IWB and simultaneously avoiding its drawbacks.

Managerial Implications The conclusions of this study have some major practical implications (see Table 3). For companies that are striving to optimize their organizational capacity to innovate and more fully tap the innate innovative working behavior of a larger proportion of their workforce, the findings of this study suggest that implementing NWW is a promising step. As the three individual core practices of NWW complement each other and provide both positive distinct individual and general effects on IWB, this chapter makes a strong case for the implementation of all three core practices of NWW. Offering the possibility to telework enhances the employees’ ability to especially engage in opportunity exploration and idea generation. By being able to effectively withdraw from the impressions and distractions of the workplace, employees are better able to concentrate, focus, and think in-depth. However, for teleworking to unleash its full potential and not cause isolation, it is important that employees can deliberately determine the timing of the telework usage themselves. Therefore, it seems advisable to not assign fixed and mandatory teleworking days but to allow the employees to plan their teleworking usage themselves, according to their respective needs. Only then it can be deliberately used for tasks suitable for solitude, such as deeply thinking about processes, products or working out an idea. Teleworking, thus, is a means that should be granted carefully and only for tasks that require indepth thinking (e.g., discovering process needs or working out the details of an idea). While an optimal extent of teleworking occurred to not be clearly quantifiable for individual employees, it appears that to have beneficial effects on IWB,

The Influence of New Ways of Working on Innovative Work Behavior Table 3: Managerial implications NWW Practice Teleworking

Flexible workspaces

Flexible working hours

139

implementing NWW to stimulate IWB.

Recommended Usage to positively influence IWB Employees should have far-reaching freedom in deliberately determining the timing and extent of their teleworking usage themselves (no fixed and mandatory teleworking days) The extent of teleworking should lie between 1 and 2.5 days per week (or between 20% and 50% of an employee’s total working hours) Flexible Workspaces should provide a broad range of diverse working environments but strong emphasis should be put on open spaces that allow for intensive deliberate and incidental intra- and interdepartmental contact and communication Functionally coherent groups of employees should retain loosely defined locations as their primary workspaces to maintain a base level of regular and predictable physical contact (to prevent isolation, colleagues should not be separated for more than 2 2.5 days per week or for more than 40 50% of their total working hours) Providing temporal flexibility appears highly beneficial but the freedom should be limited to an extent that it does not separate employees from each other and the organization for more than 2 2.5 days per week (or for more than 40 50% of their total working hours)

teleworking usage should generally lie between 1 and 2.5 workdays per week (or between 20% and 50% of an employee’s total working hours). The maximum appears to be around 2 2.5 days (or 40 50% of the weekly hours). An important notion, furthermore, is that in order to share the innovative input that employees generate at home or elsewhere outside of the organization, colleagues should maintain a base level of face-to-face contact and teleworking should be complemented with mechanisms that facilitate the sharing of innovative ideas and knowledge in general. Flexible workspaces were found to have the strongest potential impact on IWB and positively influence the employees’ abilities to engage in opportunity exploration, idea generation, and championing. By increasing the contact and communication with a greater variety of diverse colleagues throughout the organization, employees are better able to share knowledge and information. By allowing for intensive deliberate and incidental interaction among diverse employees, a snowballeffect of collectively refining identified opportunities or ideas is facilitated. Therefore, when implementing flexible workspaces, it appears important that besides

140

Florian Moll and Jan de Leede

a broad range of diverse workspaces that allow for working in solitude, a strong emphasis should be put on open spaces that stimulate intra- and interdepartmental contact. However, similar to the notion of teleworking, it appears important to maintain a certain base level of predictable and regular physical contact, especially between employees from the same functional units (e.g., project teams, workflow compartments or departments), to prevent a potential atomization of the workforce and a complication of sufficiently frequent contact. A promising way to achieve such a balance was used by the insurance company, where flexible workspaces were divided into “spots and blocks,” in which employees from a team primarily share a loosely defined workspace with their direct colleagues. This makes it possible to remain in close contact with peers, allows for regular communication and frequent informal contact that keeps relationships close. Implementing flexible working hours also positively influences IWB by allowing employees to engage in innovative behaviors when they feel ready for it and to spontaneously make time when they identify improvement potential or are struck by an idea. Furthermore, allowing for temporal flexibility makes employees more energetic and willing to engage in IWB. An important notion is that especially in administrative functions, the availability of flexible working hours can be a presupposition for employees to deliberately engage in IWB, which emphasizes the importance of granting at least a modest degree of temporal flexibility as long as the tasks of the respective employee allow for it. However, when implementing flexible working hours, similar preconditions apply as in the case of teleworking. The freedom of flexibility should be limited to such an extent that employees do not become isolated from their colleagues or the organization (i.e., not be physically absent for more than 40 50% of their total working hours). The findings of this study emphasize that maintaining a base level of physical contact is inevitable for NWW to exert its positive effects on IWB while negative effects are being prevented. Although it appears that employees are aware of the drawbacks and autonomously limit their NWW usage to prevent negative effects on their IWB, caution is judicious. Thus, until the valid and reliable quantification of the optimal extent of NWW usage for individual employees becomes possible, it appears advisable to not let the total usage of NWW (i.e., the combined usage of teleworking, flexible workspaces, and flexible working hours) account for more than 50% of an employee’s total working hours and to closely monitor the effects of the usage of NWW practices on the workforce. Countermeasures (e.g., limiting the extent of NWW usage) should be taken as soon as employees perceive to get isolated from the organization and their colleagues or when measures of commitment and the feeling of solidarity are decreasing. Furthermore, it appears advisable to agree upon mandatory presence times instead of imposing mandatory teleworking days or certain flexible times to counteract a potential atomization of the workforce. In sum, fostering innovation by introducing a balanced set of NWW practices like telework, flexible workspaces, and flexible working hours seems to be a beneficial approach.

The Influence of New Ways of Working on Innovative Work Behavior

141

References Axtell, C. M., Holman, D. J., Unsworth, K. L., Wall, T. D., Waterson, P. E., & Harrington, E. (2000). Shopfloor innovation: Facilitating the suggestion and implementation of ideas. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73(3), 265 285. 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. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497 529. Be´langer, F. (1999). Workers’ propensity to telecommute: An empirical study. Information & Management, 35(3), 139 153. Bijl, D. (2009). Aan de slag met het nieuwe werken. Zeewolde: Par CC. Bijl, D., & Gray, M. (2011). Journey towards the new way of working: Creating sustainable performance and joy at work. Par CC. Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life.. New York, NY: Wiley. Blok, M. M., Groenesteijn, L., Schelvis, R., & Vink, P. (2012). New ways of working: Does flexibility in time and location of work change work behavior and affect business outcomes? Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation, 41, 5075 5080. Campbell, J. P., Gasser, M. B., & Oswald, F. L. (1996). The substantive nature of job performance variability. In K. R. Murphy (Ed.), Individual differences and behavior in organizations (pp. 258 299). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Carmeli, A., & Spreitzer, G. M. (2009). Trust, connectivity, and thriving: Implications for innovative behaviors at work. Journal of Creative Behavior, 43(3), 169 191. Chen, C. J., & Huang, J. W. (2009). Strategic human resource practices and innovation performance The mediating role of knowledge management capacity. Journal of Business Research, 62(1), 104 114. Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 555 590. De Jong, J. P., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2007). How leaders influence employees’ innovative behaviour. European Journal of Innovation Management, 10(1), 41 64. De Jong, J. P., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2010). Measuring innovative work behaviour. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(1), 23 36. De Leede, J., & Looise, J. C. (2005). Innovation and HRM: Towards an integrated framework. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14(2), 108 117. Dorenbosch, L., Engen, M. L. V., & Verhagen, M. (2005). On-the-job innovation: The impact of job design and human resource management through production ownership. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14(2), 129 141. Drucker, P. F. (1985). Innovation and entrepreneurship: Practice and principles. New York, NY: Harper and Row. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532 550. 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 1541. Gates, B. (2005). Digital workstyle: The new world of work. A Microsoft White Paper. Getz, I., & Robinson, A. G. (2003). Innovate or die: Is that a fact? Creativity and Innovation Management, 12(3), 130 136.

142

Florian Moll and Jan de Leede

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 1421. Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59 82. Howell, J. M., Shea, C. M., & Higgins, C. A. (2005). Champions of product innovations: Defining, developing, and validating a measure of champion behavior. Journal of Business Venturing, 20, 641 661. Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M. B. (1994). Data management and analysis methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 428 444). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hurt, H. T., Joseph, K., & Cook, C. D. (1977). Scales for the measurement of innovativeness. Human Communication Research, 4(1), 58 65. Imran, R., Saeed, T., Anis-ul-Haq, M., & Fatima, A. (2010). Organizational climate as a predictor of innovative work behavior. African Journal of Business Management, 4(15), 3337 3343. Jackson, P. (2002). Virtual working: Social and organizational dynamics. Routledge. Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness, and innovative work behavior. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73(3), 287 302. Janssen, O. (2004). How fairness perceptions make innovative behavior more or less stressful. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(2), 201 215. Kanter, R. M. (1988). When a thousand flowers bloom: Structural, collective and social conditions for innovation in organization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 169 211. Kleysen, R. F., & Street, C. T. (2001). Towards a multi-dimensional measure of individual innovative behavior. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 2(3), 284 296. Krause, D. E. (2004). Influence-based leadership as a determinant of the inclination to innovate and of innovation-related behaviors: An empirical investigation. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(1), 79 102. Laursen, K., & Foss, N. J. (2003). New human resource management practices, complementarities and the impact on innovation performance. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 27(2), 243 263. Martins, E. C., & Terblanche, F. (2003). Building organisational culture that stimulates creativity and innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 6(1), 64 74. Messman, G., & Mulder, R. H. (2012). Development of a measurement instrument for innovative work behaviour as a dynamic and context-bound construct. Human Resource Development International, 15(1), 43 59. Moll, F. (2015). Fostering innovation: The influence of new ways of working on innovative work behavior An exploratory study among knowledge- and white-collar workers. Master Thesis. essay.utwente.nl%20via. Retrieved from http://essay.utwente.nl/67071/ Mumford, M. D., Whetzel, D. L., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (1997). Thinking creativity at work: Organizational influence on creative problem solving. Journal of Creative Behavior, 31(1), 7 17. Mura, M., Lettieri, E., Spiller, N., & Radaelli, G. (2012). Intellectual capital and innovative work behavior: Opening the black box. International Journal of Engineering Business Management, 4(39), 1 10. O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2004). The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review, 82(4), 74 83.

The Influence of New Ways of Working on Innovative Work Behavior

143

OECD. (1996). The knowledge based economy. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/sti/scitech/1913021.pdf. Accessed on October 8, 2014. OECD. (2013). Raising the returns to innovation: Structural policies for a knowledge-based economy. OECD Economics Department Policy Notes, 17, 1 16. Retrieved from http:// www.oecd.org/economy/KBC%20Policy%20note.pdf. Accessed on October 8, 2014. Patterson, F., Kerrin, M., & Gatto-Roissard, G. (2009). Characteristics and behaviours of innovative people in organisations. In Literature review prepared for the NESTA policy & research unit (pp. 1 63). London: NESTA. Pisano, G. P. (2015). You need an innovation strategy. Harvard Business Review, 93(6), 44 54. Schiele, H. (2003). Der Standort-Faktor. Wie unternehmen durch regionale cluster produktivita¨t und innovationskraft steigern [The location factor. How firms increase their productivity and power of innovation through regional clusters]. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH. Schiele, H. (2010). Early supplier integration: The dual role of purchasing in new product development. R&D Management, 40(2), 138 153. Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Economic Studies. Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442 1465. Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1998). Following the leader in R&D: The joint effect of subordinate problem solving style and leader-member relations on innovative behavior. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 45(1), 3 10. Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge: University Press. Ten Brummelhuis, L. L., Bakker, A. B., Hetland, J., & Keulemans, L. (2012). Do new ways of working foster work engagement? Psicothema, 24(1), 113 120. Thornhill, S. (2006). Knowledge, innovation and firm performance in high- and low-technology regimes. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(5), 687 703. West, M. A. (1987). A measure of role innovation at work. British Journal of Social Psychology, 6, 83 85. West, M. A., & Farr, J. L. (1990). Innovation and creativity at work: Psychological and organizational strategies. Chichester: Wiley. Yesil, S., & Sozbilir, F. (2013). An empirical investigation into the impact of personality on individual innovation behavior in the workplace. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 81, 540 551. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 6

A Comparison between New Ways of Working and Sociotechnical Systems$ Merle Blok, Friso van der Meulen and Steven Dhondt

Abstract For various reasons many organisations are currently introducing the new ways of working (NWW). By now, this occurs on such a large scale, that it becomes relevant to investigate whether the new way of working leads to the best way of working: are the measurements taken by NWW really resulting in pursued outcomes? NWW claims to make working more effective, efficient but also more enjoyable for the organisation as well as the employee (Bijl, 2007). In practice, it seems that more pragmatically reasons lead to changes in the way of working. In many cases this concerns the elimination of fixed workplaces, combined with the possibility to work from home or elsewhere, facilitation of working with new ICT, and establishing an organisational culture which aims at employee autonomy and goal attainment. To answer the question whether the NWW approach offers sufficient tools to provide effective solutions for occurring objectives, we compare NWW with a scientifically established construct regarding work design: Sociotechnical systems (STS) (Kuipers et al., 2010). We chose STS not only because it is a comprehensive approach to work design (all aspects of managing and organising are addressed), but also because the ambition is similar to NWW. STS considers, next to the ‘quality of the organisation’ (which is central to most work design approaches), also the ‘quality of work’ and ‘quality of employment relationships’ as outcome criteria. With incorporating the latter two, STS distinguishes itself from many other work design approaches and fits to the philosophy of NWW as mentioned above.

$

This publication was supported by the TNO Enabling Technology Programme Behavior & Innovation (2014).

New Ways of Working Practices: Antecedents and Outcomes Advanced Series in Management, Volume 16, 145 162 Copyright r 2017 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1877-6361/doi:10.1108/S1877-636120160000016007

146

Merle Blok et al.

Important foundations for the NWW approach are the quality of work as well as the willingness to organise teamwork. The comparison of NWW and STS reveals as most important finding that the NWW approach misses a coherent theoretical foundation for the design of organisations. NWW focuses on loose aspects of organisations, like workspace, work design, management, organisational culture and competences. This is also evident in the scientific research focused on NWW: many studies examine the impact of a specific measure (e.g. introduction of flexible workspaces) on specific aspects of the organisation (e.g. social cohesion). Due to the lack of a work design approach no framework exists to test whether the introduction of NWW fits to the organisation and how work is organised and divided. It is our statement that NWW can only be effective once a good theoretical foundation is provided for NWW and once a clear work design approach is deducted. Simultaneously, the NWW practices provide so many relevant practical experiences on skills and information underlining the potential of STS. Currently, STS mostly is focused on work in industrial organisations. STS and NWW have the potential to mutually extend each other, while tools may be developed with which new ways of working lead to the best way of working for organisations. Keywords: New ways of working; sociotechnical systems theory; conceptual comparison

Introduction NWW does not come out of the blue, it can be seen as a response to structural changes in the economy. Driven by changes in the economic, social and technical environment, the question arises frequently whether our current design of organisations and work is still suitable to the challenges of our time. An indication thereof is the interest in NWW and the amount of organisations which implement initiatives to introduce NWW. Before we examine NWW more closely, we first pay attention to the changes which strongly influence our ways of working. Today’s economy changes fundamentally in various aspects. The globalisation of markets led to off-shoring of production capacities to low-wage countries. The Dutch economy developed itself more towards an information and knowledge economy. Additionally, more market segments emerge with their unique needs and desires through the fragmentation of markets. Organisations have to adapt quickly and better to these trends. This requires companies to become more flexible and more innovative in production as well as in delivering products and services. Simultaneously, the need for productivity increases prevails to be urgent due to fierce competition. Furthermore, developments in the employment market have an impact on how organisations are designed and how they operate. The demographic changes lead to large shifts in the composition and availability of personnel. Young employees have

Comparison between New Ways of Working and Sociotechnical Systems

147

different needs regarding work, workplace and organisations. Issues such as worklife balance, sense of purpose, personal development and flexibility have high priorities for most employees. Likewise, the growing mobility problems are playing a role here. Employees, especially information workers, frequently wonder why they should be obliged to stay in office from 9 until 5 including the daily traffic jams while this is not necessary for the tasks at hand. Anyway, technological innovations enable collaboration with different means than only physical and face-to-face. All in all, the necessity to be present at work simultaneously is reduced. It is changing the usage of an office building from being a workplace to being a ‘get together’ place. Moreover, employees and employers are increasingly aware of their responsibility to contribute to the reduction of environmental pollution. Thereby the need arises to get the massive amount of commuting down by working and travelling more intelligent. As the interests of employers and employees are aligned in this regard, both parties are willing to implement new ways and designs of work, like NWW practices. All in all, organisations are faced with various challenges: flexible and innovative ways of providing products and services are required, to respond to dynamics and differences in the market; Increases in productivity to tackle the expected scarcity of employees and to increase the organisation’s attractiveness as an employer; Reduction of costs to compete with prices of others; Utilisation of innovative capacity within the organisation’s human capital. Responsible usage of human capital to maintain its availability; Attractive employment to employees (including flexible labour) to recruit and retain potential talents to the organisation in a time where older professionals have to work longer until retirement, and where young professionals are scare; Fulfilling the social role and responsibility for the society and environment.

NWW as the Answer? It is because of these challenges that NWW is an acknowledged approach to refurbish work: organisations see in the introduction of new ways of working an opportunity to increase employee’s performance, to reduce costs, and thereby to increase the attractiveness as an employer. The positive buzz around NWW in blogs, articles and books seems to not offer any space for negative effects which can actually be expected from NWW. The negative effects are intentionally underrepresented in some cases. In 2011 for example, a report was published on behalf of the foundation ‘Natuur en Milieu’ (PWC, 2011) in which only the macro economic benefits of NWW are incorporated in the equation of increasing NWW effects in the Netherlands. Disadvantageous effects are neglected completely in this publication. This happened although different studies reported that NWW can result in reduced social cohesion on the work floor and that NWW removes the borders between work and private life, which may lead to burn-outs (Blok, Groenesteijn, Berg, & van den Vink, 2011).

148

Merle Blok et al.

Research also has shown that the autonomy resulting from NWW is not a blessing for everyone: employees with a need for structure perform better in a stable work environment with clear rules and borders (Slijkhuis, 2012). Goal setting, autonomous working and flexible workspaces may be counterproductive for these employees (Slijkhuis, 2012). Research Question and Methodology NWW does not seem to be the exclusive ‘solution of everything’. It is also not possible to deduct the bottom line of positive and negative effects because the total effects of NWW are difficult to quantify. This is since NWW is frequently coined as an ‘umbrella term’ and misses a comprehensive definition (Blok & Kuijt-Evers, 2012). Due to the manner and extent of the challenges mentioned above, and the importance to find answers to these, the question arises whether NWW prepares organisations well enough to face the challenges. Do the opposing voices show problems which are inherent to the new forms of working which are parts of NWW or do they show shortcomings of the NWW-concepts and approaches? Phrased differently: Is the new way of working the best way of working? To answer this question, it seems appropriate to benchmark the NWW-instrument as well as the theory which has developed from practice with a general ‘golden standard’. However, such a golden standard is missing. Nevertheless, we can compare NWW with a different recent approach or method. In this chapter, we refer therefore to modern Sociotechnical Systems (STS) as philosophy for work design (Kuipers, Amelsvoort, & Kramer, 2010). STS is a business approach for the design of organisations. It has a history of research and practice which goes back to the 1950s. In the following section we will further explain and justify the choice for this method as reference philosophy. Afterwards, both methods will be compared with each other to determine to which degree the NWW-instrument comprises the foundation which helps organisations to design flexible production systems, optimal utilisation of human capital, attractive employment in a decent context, and the framework for social responsibility. In short, this chapter is a conceptual comparison of the NWW approach with STS design theory.

Modern Sociotechnical System as Reference Philosophy Modern Sociotechnical Systems theory (modern STS) (van Eijnatten, 1993; Kuipers et al., 2010; de Sitter, den Hertog, & Dankbaar, 1997) emerged from a system-theoretical reformulation of the Socio-Technical perspective. The Socio-Technical perspective refers to the development approach which emerged after the Second World War in England to increase productivity in the coal mines of Durham (Trist, 1981). Modern STS is an integrative approach to organisation design, including the demands from the business environment in the design and management of the strategic and

Comparison between New Ways of Working and Sociotechnical Systems

149

operational levels (De Leede, Looise, & Verkerk, 2002). In the last 50 years, high value and impact are found by researchers and the approach is re-evaluated and adjusted to new developments and findings. In short, we value Modern STS as an approach with a solid, scientific foundation with a certain maturity. Another reason to choose for modern STS as a reference philosophy is because of the similarity between MST and NWW. It is unique to MST that it considers, next to the quality of the organisation (concerning the efficiency and productivity), also the quality of work and quality of the employment relationships. By the latter two, MST does not only distinguish itself well from other methods, but it also relates to the visions and ambitions of NWW. These go to a considerable degree over the focus on human capital as: enjoyable working, creation of collaboration and meeting space and autonomous working. These are aspects that express the quality of work and employment relations. Our analysis will enable us to determine to which degree NWW goes further than MST or falls short at critical points.

Comparison NWW

Modern STS

The characteristics of modern STS as a theory and as a design approach are founded in systems theory. That enables us to compare STS with NWW. Thereby, we focus on the results of both approaches as they are present in the literature. MST aims at providing a design for organisations, but also discusses how change has to be implemented. First we focus on these elements; afterwards we take a look at the foundation of MST which we compare to NWW. The box below provides the definitions for the concepts used in this chapter.

Scientific components: Scientific foundation: Provides insight to which degree and in which manner method, approach and tools are founded on theory based on research. To what extent is NWW and STS based on research and which theory is its foundation? Design approach: Illustrates which aspects of production and management are described by the method/approach. Change management approach: Illustrates whether and how the method provides an approach for change and implementation next to organisation design. Design components: Design of the production structure: The manner in which the executing functions of an organisation are grouped and linked according to the production structure. The blueprint of a production structure illustrates whether and how the blueprint of the primary (production) process, the supporting processes and the related organisation are described.

150

Merle Blok et al. Design of the management structure: The manner in which the managing functions are grouped and linked according to the management structure. The design of a managing structure illustrates whether and how the blueprint of the managing processes, the related organisation is described. Design of the supporting systems: Which (ICT)-instrument is used. Design of the other commitment systems: Next to the production and management structure there are commitment systems necessary, like the working conditions, to ultimately achieve the desired results (Dhondt, 2000). Optimisation areas: Illustrates which areas are optimised by the method/ approach; in other words, which results are pursued by the method.

These concepts were chosen to provide clarity and a comprehensive picture over the applicability of a design method. Table 1 illustrates the comparison on these concepts. From this comparison of modern STS and NWW some elements emerge that will be used to establish whether the NWW is also the best way of working.

Scientific Components Scientific Foundation First of all, we see that STS is based on a well-founded theory, while this is missing for NWW. The NWW concept is based on visions how work has to be designed and on experiences from practice. Originally and in its full extend NWW seems to go towards an integrative vision. Thereby, we do not intend to express that the vision only covers changes in the work environment, but also how work with ICT is supported and how teamwork is managed. Bijl describes NWW as follows: ‘The new way of working is a vision to make work more effective and efficient but also more enjoyable for the organisation and the employee’ (Bijl, 2007). Veldhoen, founding father of NWW in the Netherlands, was the first to operationalise the vision in the well-known three-dimensional model. The model describes three different dimensions concerning the introduction of NWW: the physical model (office and work environment), virtual model (information and communication systems) and the mental model (behaviour, culture, organisation) (Veldhoen, 2005). The findings from practice and evaluating studies show that those elements influence each other, respectively, that interventions in one area (e.g. organisational instrument to introduce working independently from time and space) have to be paired with appropriate interventions in other areas (enabling ICT systems; culture sessions to develop new behaviours and processes; adaptation in management style) to achieve effective change. Unfortunately, little scientific and independent research is done in which NWW projects delivered the desired results (Blok et al., 2011). This is partly caused by

Table 1: Comparison between MST and NWW based on aspects of organisation.

Scientific components Scientific foundation

Modern Sociotechnical Systems (STS) Theory: well-described system theory (Luhmann, 1984). Combination of business administration and social science frameworks. Emerged in industrial production environment; further developed to other contexts. Research: Effects of STS are well studied and published (Kuipers et al., 2010).

Design approach

Conclusion

Theory: NWW is described by various visionaries/ ambassadors (Bijl, 2007; Gates, 2005a; Veldhoen, 2005) but a decent scientific theory is missing. It is the new vision on work which emerges in practice and therefore is pragmatically oriented. By now, mostly practice-oriented books are published with limited theoretical foundation. Research: There are primarily anecdotal cases presented as empirical foundation, with little scientific research. Research focuses on extreme cases or only on single aspects of the NWW (e.g. only on the effect of home work).

NWW is based on pragmatic foundations, not on a specific theory, like STS. The scientific content of the concept is limited and clear definitions are missing. Further development is primarily related to the optimisation of the link between design and organisation of the work environment, workspace and ICT on the one hand and the implementation/change management approach on the other hand.Since MST emerged from industrial organisations, the development of STS competences within the realm of knowledge work is limited. In this respect, NWW-research can be a useful addition to MST.

NWW does not have a clear design approach.

MST as well as NWW focus both on customised solutions in which the organisational context and the pursued objectives

Comprehensive in regards to different aspects (physical,

151

STS consists of a design approach (this is already more perceived as a development approach by practitioners). It

New Ways of Working (NWW)

Comparison between New Ways of Working and Sociotechnical Systems

Variables

Modern Sociotechnical Systems (STS) contains a design approach to develop the desired situation. Comprehensive (integrative approach) since it comprises the combination of production, management and supporting structures, with clear priorities and hierarchy of variables. Scope: complete organisation with all facets • Production-managementsupport, • Macro-meso-micro level, • Structure, processes, systems and functions.

Change management approach

MST is not a change management approach per se, but it sets the boundaries for a change management approach (regime transformation).

New Ways of Working (NWW)

Conclusion

determine the specific content of the approach. In theory, it is also not about a onetime implementation, but about a sustainable development where the organisation’s human capital plays a crucial role. Both approaches emerge from a comprehensive framework. Different is that the development rules and methods of MST are related to all facets of designing organisations whereas NWW misses such an overarching design approach and does not consider operational processes (‘what and by whom’ remains untouched). NWW does not contain a Both methods do not offer a comprehensive change complete approach to change management approach; however, management.Where MST attention is paid in theory and provides more content for the practice to the different aspects policy of change, NWW provides of change and implementation more content for the intervention itself. Within NWW, the virtual, organisational culture), but no priority or hierarchy of these aspects. Re-design of the processes primarily from management perspective; operational processes (‘what by whom’) are left out (only ‘where/ when’).

Merle Blok et al.

Variables

152

Table 1. Continued.

(culture, process, incorporating employees, etc.).

Management structure

NWW does not change the production structure. There is no change of (re)grouping the operational functions. Primarily focused on ‘how’ and ‘where’ you execute the tasks; the work structure is perceived as given. Aims at implementation of communication processes and provision of the equipment for communication; (re)organising of primary processes is not a topic of change. Guidelines for design consist primarily of visions and principles (specific criteria and guidelines are missing).

NWW is primarily concerned with change in the current production structure, while in MST the production structure itself is a topic of research and design.

Focused on management of the entire organisation on all levels. Management decisions as low as possible within the

NWW does not change the existing management structure of the organisation, but introduces new guiding

In terms of management within NWW a shift is present from input-control to output-control of individual employees.STS looks at the management

153

Starting principle: how can processes be adapted to market demands (group technology as method). Aimed at complete production (processes, tasks, systems, structure). Specific and elaborated design criteria and policies.

Comparison between New Ways of Working and Sociotechnical Systems

Design components Production structure

interventions do not fit within a broader spectrum of behaviouror organisation theory. Therefore, consequences may be ad hoc.

Supporting systems

Modern Sociotechnical Systems (STS)

New Ways of Working (NWW)

Conclusion

organisation: pursuing a balance between rules/ regulations and opportunities + closed feedback loops (first and second-order learning). Only centralise what is really necessary in terms of strategy and efficiency.

principles, for example outputdriven. It includes much attention for the relationship between employee and (middle)management. Managing of existing control systems is often developed via a top-down principle: output above all, then disseminating it down, and combining it with a bottom-up approach. No further design guidelines for management, preparation and support.

structure (strategic, tactical, operational) from a content as well as an operational perspective.NWW seems to be focused on individual optimisation of work and thereby one may expect that the optimisation will result in more effective organisations (e.g. employees may choose when they want to work from home). NWW incorporates the risk that outputs are not related to organisational problems nor to inputs. Employees are forced to be compensated for deficits in the organisation by personal efforts. Within STS the focus is on a balance between tasks and outputs. The risks emerge with NWW that output problems are perceived as individual problems of single employees.

The central idea is that supporting systems are

NWW formulate guidelines regarding these three elements

For STS, the organisation is the starting point for the technology

Merle Blok et al.

Variables

154

Table 1. Continued.

Information technology

Other commitment systems (culture; working conditions; motivators, etc.)

Seems to be the last addition to Commitment systems are important for NWW: the design of the other three structures (production, management, support). In STS NWW as a means for being an the main line of reasoning is that attractive employer. ‘human resources mobilisation’ Implementation of NWW is has to be the answer to selfbased on cultural interventions developing organisations. STS is and training of both not clear on the possible management and co-workers. unintended outcomes of the commitment systems, for

NWW seems to have a more prominent place for commitment of employees compared to STS. Still, it is a more individualised conception of commitment, in line with the idea that performance is individual-based too. Team-based work and team rewards are difficult to achieve. At STS, the unintended consequences of reward and

155

and the supporting systems. However, it is not always possible to adapt technology or ICT to the desires of the organisation design. Therefore, sometimes the design has to adapt to the supporting system. How to deal with this is not well explained by STS. NWW believes in the individualisation of workspaces. In practice this belief is pursued with functionally departmentalised organisations. Thereby, employees and organisations suffer from this functional design.

Comparison between New Ways of Working and Sociotechnical Systems

Physical work environment

(ICT, physical environment and culture) as means to achieve desired outcomes. The guidelines have to be executed in an integrative manner and need to be aligned with each other. In practice, it remains difficult and complex to align guidelines. The intention is to adapt the work environment to individual desires. Thereby, an optimal situation seems to be possible (everyone gets his/her wishes fulfilled, BYOD). In practice, many NWWconsultants use a functional separation of organising work: similar tasks are allocated together.

designed after production and management structures are set up. Supporting systems have to be adapted to the organisational needs. Little attention is paid to the physical workspace. ICT: design rule is ‘first organise, then automate.’ Sociotechnical ICT is sufficiently being developed, but primarily focused on production and administration systems. Design criteria for ICT that support knowledge workers are missing.

Modern Sociotechnical Systems (STS)

New Ways of Working (NWW)

Conclusion

example how reward might cover the individual differences between team members and how to deal with reward differences within teams.

NWW expects that reward and commitment can be individualised to a large extent. Teamwork is supposed to occur; it is not organised for it.

commitment are not clear. The conceptual link between commitment and system is rather undeveloped.

STS aims at improving three result areas simultaneously based on a system solution. Therefore, it is also conceptualised as an integrative optimisation of the quality of organisation, quality of work and quality of employment relations.

NWW does not have a systematic foundation of the relation between result areas. Since the individual is so central, the idea is that individual optimisation leads to organisational optimisation. This is certainly not always the case, as we might think of certain aspects of quality of work (worklife balance; working independent of space and time) and certain aspects of quality of employment relations (teamwork/meeting).

Although there is no (systematic) attention paid to the design of organisations within NWW, there is a certain degree of similarity with STS since NWW modernises work and teamwork. However, where in STS the alignment is achieved theoretically and implemented practically, within NWW this interconnection is based on the assumption of the optimisation for individuals, by individuals.

Optimisation areas

a

http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/execmail/2005/05-19newworldofwork.mspx

Merle Blok et al.

Variables

156

Table 1. Continued.

Comparison between New Ways of Working and Sociotechnical Systems

157

ill-defined objectives. The few studies that have been conducted focus on the whole set of NWW tools and the effects thereof on a broad range of organisational goals as productivity, vitality and sustainability (Aravaniti & Loukis, 2009; Baane, Houtkamp, & Knotter, 2010). These studies provide for the case organisations valuable insights and provide directions for management. However, the results are difficult to generalise to other organisations. The complexity of the interventions and the many factors which interfere and interact with each other make it difficult to measure and generalise. There has been done some research on specific NWW tools, such as the relation between working at home and the risk of professional isolation and loss of commitment. Nevertheless, it is difficult to establish which effect NWW tools have in combination because these may weaken or strengthen each other. Additionally, these studies only take some outcome criteria into consideration, for instance only the effects on work-life balance. Unfortunately, the complete set of organisational objectives and challenges is excluded. Next to academic studies, in-practice self-reports and self-assessments are used to analyse NWW projects. By now, there is a vast amount of case descriptions over NWW on the internet (e.g. van der Pous & de Wielen, 2011). The risk of such selfreports is that results are interpreted so that they fit to the originally formulated objectives. Failed interventions or negative results are not made public or are biased because employees do not objectively approach surveys or provide socially desired answers. Summarised: the definition of NWW is blurry, there is no clear theory which provides a foundation for NWW and the scientific proof for the effectiveness of NWW so far is very limited. In our view, modern STS does possess what NWW is still searching for, that is a well-founded theory. From the comparison we can deduct that the lack of theory within NWW leads to much attention for the possibility of individualisation of work and organisation. However, the unintended consequences are not considered. By following an integrative approach, MST prevents that solutions are only relevant for individuals. Therefore, organisational solutions should be more sustainable with the MST approach compared to the NWW approach.

Design Components Design Approach STS as well as NWW starts with a design approach in which a vision is formulated; the way how to get there is much less developed (we may coin this as a development approach). It is assumed that mission and organisational objectives provide sufficient direction. This notion fits well to NWW issues. These issues incorporate often the same characteristics: the future is not predictable, the problems are complex, there is sufficient time for change, the knowledge is limited, the intention to learn together is present and flexible planning is possible. The approach starts with formulating a vision about the future of work. The strategy develops itself step-by-step, without central guidance, within the borders set by the vision. Often, first steps and actions are formulated towards the vision. After evaluating these initial activities, the following actions are determined. Thereby, the goal

158

Merle Blok et al.

becomes clearer and the organisation moves towards the vision. The approach comprises participation of end-users and has an integrative character. Therefore, it cannot be spoken of a ‘blueprint design’ where a clear end- and starting point with a path leading to the vision are set in stone. Objectives, actions and management principles are not specified and there is initially no method or approach. While the design approach is a central and deliberate characteristic of the modern STS approach, it seems that within NWW it is forgotten to define the vision clearly. Since the NWW practices are visible and touchable for other organisations the risk arises to focus too much on these practices and too little on the goal of the change. Organisations run the risk to formulate the NWW practices as a goal in itself then, without explicitly formulating the goals and intentions. Production- and Management Structure NWW does not seem to introduce changes to the primary process. Production as well as management structure remain untouched within the NWW implementation. How functions are grouped and linked together does not change and also how managing functions are grouped and linked is often not part of the NWW intervention. NWW focuses on opportunities of optimisation within the existing organisational structure. In many cases, the organisational structure and the division of work remain intact. On the one hand, this has a practical advantage, on the other hand, it is possible that opportunities are missed to achieve actual optimisation. Research in the sociotechnical tradition showed that the division of work1 in an organisation has a remarkable impact on the performance of the organisation and the behaviour of managers and co-workers within the organisation (Kuipers et al., 2010). Change which leaves the existing division of work (largely) intact may lead to unintended consequences. Fundamental problems may remain if the division of work does not change: for example, impractical streams of products and processes due to a less effective division of work. When an organisation has the ambition to become more flexible, productive and attractive within a highly specialised bureaucratised system, then it is extremely challenging (not to say impossible) to implement the intended change within the existing division of work. Another point is that NWW focuses on maximum autonomy for the individual by utilising the management philosophy. This is a commendable goal, but may remain a vision only. It might lead towards a situation in which a balance, between what the organisation offers and what the individual wants to solve, is missing. Organisations may not provide sufficient social support or other organisational adaptations for organisational tasks to be executed.

Supporting Systems In practice NWW assumes that well-functioning ICT-systems exist. Organisations have to be adjusted to the possibilities of these systems. NWW

1

Division of work here is summarised as the manner in which tasks, responsibilities and authorities are organised.

Comparison between New Ways of Working and Sociotechnical Systems

159

approaches ICT like an individual’s issue (‘the person is central’ and every human individual has a personal ICT-solution). It is not mentioned how the issues of the individual with its optimal support for ‘personalised’ ICT can be aligned with the objectives of the organisation (corporate rules; ‘corporate memory’; knowledge management; efficiency, etc.). The idea is that organisations have to provide opportunities to accommodate such a buy/bring-your-own-device (BYOD). NWW does not say which systems have to be developed and which criteria have to be applied. Based on the possibilities of the individual and its personal hardware and software solutions, NWW illustrates how these possibilities can be utilised in the design of workplaces. The user holds the role to provide these possibilities. This is not only about ICT, but also about tools and ideas in the area of physical work environment and organisational culture. A photo frame with pictures of the own family at the flexible work space is an example for that. These tools and ideas go hand in hand and have to be aligned with each other. The idea within STS is to adjust these supporting systems to the design of the organisation. The selection of systems must not be made by chance. It is unclear what needs to be done within STS when only few adjustable systems are in place. There is some research present within STS over the inflexibility of ICT (Govers, 2003), but no desired functionalities for employees are mentioned. So, although STS formulates the general idea of a fit between the supporting ICT systems to the organisation design, other more specific design rules are lacking. Other Commitment Tools NWW is based on the assumption that it is sufficient to provide employees with autonomy and goal setting. This is based on the central idea that managers have to trust their employees and employees have to learn to take responsibilities (e.g. Bijl, 2007). Therefore, these principles can be trained and are part of training sessions and cultural change interventions that are used in NWW projects. On the contrary, STS assumes that division of work and the management structure are heavily impacting the (employment)-relations and the behaviour of people within the organisation. Consequence of a highly divided work is not only the need for much communication but also a reserved and hesitant behaviour and a ‘do as you are told’ attitude of employees. Management based on trust and autonomy requires therefore that employees have to have the possibilities (regulatory latitude) and means (including information) to function optimally in relation to the whole of the organisation (team, department, division). Only then it is valuable to pay attention to trust, autonomy and self-organisation. Areas of Optimisation Next to ‘quality of organisation’ (which is central to most design approaches), STS also includes ‘quality of work’ and ‘quality of employment relationships’ as objective areas. The latter two differentiate STS from most other design approaches. NWW strives to relate to such a broad perspective on results. Attention for the quality of work and teamwork are important pillars to the NWW philosophy.

160

Merle Blok et al.

Although there is no (systematic) contribution for the design of organisations, there is definitely a degree of similarity to STS since NWW also focuses on modernising work and teamwork. The NWW approach should benefit from STS solutions regarding the problems arising from autonomy as well as from conflicting responsibilities originating from work and private life. Frequently it is reported that the implementation of NWW practices leads to increased stress levels (Blok et al., 2011). From an STS perspective the increase in stress after introducing NWW is perceived as a misfit between the control needed for the (psychological) demands and the actual decision latitude (Karasek & Theorell, 1979). In such a case the additional possibilities and autonomy within NWW practices for many individuals might turn into an additional burden instead of advantage or improvement (Kuipers et al., 2010). Another issue that arises from NWW is the organisation of collaboration and coordination. Solving the root cause of the problem requires investigating the need for collaboration and coordination. According to STS the need for coordination emerges from the division of work: the manner in which work is divided and allocated over departments and teams. A high degree of work division, as often found in large organisations, is disadvantageous as complexity increases; the need for coordination and amount of interfaces rises exponentially with the degree of division (Kuipers et al., 2010). If nothing changes in the division of work, NWW will only add to the complexity as employees work from different places at different times. This might be an important explanation of the possible failures and increased stress levels. One of the objectives of NWW is the increase in productivity. NWW seems to be focused on optimising the work of the individual, while it is assumed that this optimisation results in a more effective organisation. For example, people may choose where they want to work based on personal preferences and not based on the departmental need. Often, the optimisation of only the individual’s work is central. Some studies on the effects of NWW focus on the sum of individual performance; the level of team, project or department performance is sometimes neglected in NWW (Van der Kleij, Blok, Aarts, Vos, & Weyers, 2013).

Conclusion Our main conclusion is if NWW really wants to contribute to strategic transformation of organisations, a clearer design method for organisations is necessary. Due to the similarity between STS and NWW it seems promising to develop a synthesis of STS and NWW principles. It is obvious that NWW follows a system approach similar to STS, albeit less elaborated. With this systematic approach it can be identified to which degree the new organisation of information work leads to another relationship between design components. STS can also learn from NWW, especially regarding how to deal with ICT, attitude of employees and physical work environment. Progress is probably possible if NWW- and STS-proponents use a

Comparison between New Ways of Working and Sociotechnical Systems

161

Figure 1: The four elements NWW model of TNO. Source: Adapted from Blok and Kuijt-Evers (2012). configurational approach as De Leede suggests in the introductory chapter of this book. Figure 1 illustrates how thoughts about employees, work and the organisation can be extended. The central idea is that all four elements should be taken into account to further design of the organisation. It is about the simultaneously design of organisation and management, ICT, physical workspace and attitudes and behaviours. Additional research is necessary to achieve an optimally performing organisation based on information and knowledge work by integrating NWW knowledge with STS methods and techniques. Concluding we can say that NWW has the potential to become the best way of working; to achieve this it is necessary to further develop STS theory while applying this in the NWW context. The currently scarce scientific research on the actual effects of NWW have to be extended. We need a broad knowledge base to discuss the potential impact of NWW. To achieve successful NWW implementation it is necessary to utilise a decent design approach. NWW shows that the current work environment is changed and that STS users have to pay more attention to this context and the means which can be utilised and adjusted to this context. Phrased differently: NWW shows that STS also needs a development programme.

References Aravaniti, S., & Loukis, E. N. (2009). ICT, human capital, workplace organization and labour productivity: A comparative study based on firm-level data for Greece and Switzerland. Information, Economics and Policy, 21, 43 61. Baane, R., Houtkamp, P., & Knotter, M. (2010). Het Nieuwe Werken ontrafeld. Den Haag: Stichting Management Studies. ISBN: 9789023245858. Bijl, D. (2007). Het nieuwe werken, op weg naar een productieve kenniseconomie. Amsterdam: Academic Service. Blok, M., Groenesteijn, L., Berg, C., & van den Vink, P. (2011). New ways of working: A proposed framework and literature review. In M. M. Robertson (Ed.), Ergonomics and health aspects (3 12), HCII, LNCS 6779.

162

Merle Blok et al.

Blok, M., & Kuijt-Evers, L. (2012). Wie kust de Nieuwe Werker wakker. Tijdschrift Voor Ergonomie, 37(3), 24 27. Dhondt, S. (2000). Systemische netwerken van organisaties. Leiden: ProefschriftUniversiteit Leiden. van Eijnatten, F. M. (1993). The paradigm that changed the workplace. Assen: VanGorcum. Govers, M. J. G. (2003). Met ERP-systemen op weg naar moderne bureaucratiee¨n? PhD study, Radboud University Nijmegen. Karasek, R. A., & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy work: Stress, productivity, and the reconstruction of working life. New York, NY: Basic Books. Kuipers, H., van Amelsvoort, P., & Kramer, M. (2010). Het Nieuwe organiseren. Leuven: Acco. De Leede, J., Looise, J. C., & Verkerk, M. J. (2002). The mini-company: A specification of sociotechnical business systems. Personnel Review, 31(3), 338 355. Luhmann, N. (1984). Soziale Systeme, Grundriss einer allgemeinen Theorie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. van der Pous, V. A., & de Wielen, J. M. M. (Eds.). (2011). Praktijkvisies op Het Nieuwe Werken. Meppel: Uitgeverij TIEM/TelewerkForum. ISBN: 9789079272167. PWC.(2011). Een verkenning van macro-economische effecten van Het Nieuwe Werken. Utrecht: Stichting Natuur en Milieu. de Sitter, L. U., den Hertog, J. F., & Dankbaar, B. (1997). From complex organizations with simple jobs to simple organizations with complex jobs. Human Relations, 50(5), 497 535. Slijkhuis, M. (2012). A structured approach to need for structure at work. PhD thesis. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. Trist, E. L. (1981). The sociotechnical perspective: The evolution of sociotechnical systems as a conceptual framework and as an action research program. In A. H. van de Ven & W. F. Joyce (Eds.), Perspectives on organization design and behaviour. New York, NY: Wiley. Van der Kleij, R., Blok, M., Aarts, O., Vos, P., & Weyers, L. (2013). Het nieuwe werken en kennisdelen: de rol van organisatie-identificatie en autonomie. Tijdschrift voor Arbeidsvraagstukken, 1(29), 63 82. Veldhoen, E. (2005). The art of working. Den Haag: Academic Service.

Websites Blauw Research. (2010). Bekendheid Het Nieuwe Werken sterk toegenomen. Retrieved from http:// www.blauw.com/nl/nieuws-en-blogs/item/bekendheid-het-nieuwe-werken-sterk-toegenomen/ White Paper Bill Gates. Retrieved from http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/execmail/2005/0519newworldofwork.mspx

Chapter 7

Outlook: Some HR Implications towards Normal Ways of Working Tanya Bondarouk and Jan de Leede

Abstract Based on seven chapters in this volume and a broader literature review, we present a research agenda where research challenges are identified with the relevant research questions. In the second place, this chapter presents the implications of NWW for HR, in particular the required competences for HR-professionals. We elaborate on several research questions that, in our view, help to address challenges to advance our understanding of NWW. The need for more theory-driven research is stipulated, including some possible directions for appropriate methods, such as configurational analysis. we argue that it is essential for HR-professionals to know the required HR-competences for managing and coaching those who are involved in NWW-practices. This chapter provides crucial insights for these competences. Keywords: Research agenda; HR-competences; new ways of working; normal ways of working

In the last chapter of this volume, we take a look at the future of New Ways of Working. This is a challenging journey, and risky, since it is difficult to predict, particularly because it is about the future. NWW claims to make working more effective, efficient but also more enjoyable for the organization as well as the employees. In practice, it seems that hard-headed reasons often lead to changes in the way of working: budget cuts, elimination of fixed workplaces, combined with the possibility to work from home or elsewhere, facilitation of working with new technologies, reinforcing employee autonomy and goals attainment.

New Ways of Working Practices: Antecedents and Outcomes Advanced Series in Management, Volume 16, 163 175 Copyright r 2017 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1877-6361/doi:10.1108/S1877-636120160000016008

164

Tanya Bondarouk and Jan de Leede

We were puzzled by the question whether the NWW concept echoes really a new way of working, and if so what is new and what is normal in it? At first, we wanted to check an etymological analysis of the word ‘new’. Search in diverse dictionaries resulted in an explanation of ‘new’ as of a kind now existing or appearing for the first time. In the course of working on this volume and following business reports of New Ways of Working (NWW), we had to conclude that the ‘new’ is gradually becoming ‘normal’. Although it does not change the abbreviation of the concept NWW it does bring an extra connotation to it. And it raises new questions. As it has been noticed in one of the chapters, NWW occurs on such a large scale, that it becomes relevant to investigate whether it leads to the best way of working: are the measurements taken by NWW really resulting in pursued outcomes? Does working anytime truly mean working all-the-time, and does it lead to a spectacular work-life balance? To say whether a New Ways of Working is becoming a Normal Ways of Working, let us first explain what is normal. Logically the word normal is rooted in the word norm that can be described as something that is usual, typical, or standard. In short, ‘the way we do things around here’. A ‘norm’ is perhaps one of the most important concepts in sociology. Following the founding sociologist Durkheim, we would consider NWW to become a norm as a social fact: this phenomenon has entered the organizational life, it exists independently of individual managers and/or employees, and it shapes business and scholarly thoughts. To put it stronger, it influences the research agenda for coming years. Following this approach, NWW is a norm and it has a coercive power over business and research. When broken, it might enlist a business reaction that is meant to reaffirm NWW. On the other hand, as the Oxford Dictionary of Psychology tells, social psychology recognizes that smaller group units, such as a team or an office, may also endorse norms separate or in addition to cultural or general business expectations. In this vein, NWW can be even regarded as collective representations of acceptable group behaviour of business community. Either conceptualization of a norm we take, Normal Ways of Working would refer to ways of working, which conform to norms. Probably, businesses should not blend it with normative ways of working what business leaders would perceive as normal, or what they think should be normal, regardless of whether it actually is. Probably, researchers should gladly accept that it is a norm for businesses to strive for better ways of working and organizing, whether we call it new or not. We continue our chapter with suggestions how to shape the research memo for next steps in Normal New Ways of Working, based on the empirical findings reported in this volume. We will make a research agenda based on the building blocks of a conceptual framework. For each building block we outline the research challenges and formulate some research questions. Finally, we present the required competences for HR to deal with the relevant NWW practices. What kinds of competences are needed if you have to coach the managers and supervisors in implementing and managing the variety of NWW

Outlook: Some HR Implications towards Normal Ways of Working

165

practices? It seems that dealing with diversity and judgement about what is needed for whom are important competences.

Research Agenda for Normal New Ways of Working While we collected a set of chapters about New Ways of Working (NWW), and the HRM role in it, a critical reflection revealed that our knowledge of NWW remained surprisingly incomplete and that a number of important questions stay unanswered. We put forward our thought that, in integration, hopefully would build an avenue for future research to advance practice of NWW. Table 1 summarizes our view on future prospective of this research, partially inspired by the chapters in this volume. In the quantitative study, presented in Chapter 1, Hoornweg, Peters and van der Heijden examined the relationship between telework intensity and individual productivity. The authors also tested whether this relationship was mediated by employees’ intrinsic motivation, and whether it was moderated by office hours. With some limitations due to the restricted statistical power and one specific industry sector, still the results of this study have shown the existence of a direct curvilinear relationship between telework intensity and individual productivity. However, contrary to expectations, neither a mediating role of intrinsic motivation, nor a moderation effect of the number of office hours was found to impact the relationship between telework intensity and intrinsic motivation. Findings allowed for a conclusion that consequences for productivity are dependent on telework intensity, and that the number of office hours has an important impact on the consequences of different telework intensities. A very interesting observation stemming from this study is that although New Ways of Working is promised to enable employees to better balance work and non-work activities, this study indicated that the anticipated productivity gains were only realized when teleworking was accompanied by longer working hours. The authors acknowledge that in their study it was not clear whether this was employees’ initiative and how this affected their work-life balance. It raises an interesting issue for the future research. In our view, the NWW brings the HRM research into ‘crossing boundary’ perspective. More insights are needed to understand the boundaries of the territory of the NWW but also the boundaries of its outcomes. Chapter 2 continued with the boundaryless work (Mellner, Kecklund, Kompier, Sariaslan and Aronsson). The authors presented results of a large-scale survey that tested the inter-relationships between boundaryless work in time and space, weekly work hours, psychological detachment, sleeping problems and sleep duration. Findings showed that working boundlessly in time increases the likelihood for long weekly work hours and lack of psychological detachment. But employees working ‘anytime all the time’ run the risk of ‘always being on’ resulting in disturbed sleep. Interesting to notice that the authors, despite their findings, assume that flexible working conditions may also be beneficial, for instance for those who are able

166

Tanya Bondarouk and Jan de Leede

Table 1: Challenges and questions for the future NWW research. Building Blocks of NWW Model

Research Challenge

Research Questions

Type of NWW-practice

The (un)effective combination of different NWW practices and their impact on performance is still unknown.

RQ-1A. What combinations of NWW practices do reinforce each other and what combinations do impact the business performance?

RQ-1B. How does the type of job influence these effective combinations? RQ-1C. What are contingency factors that influence the combined effect of NWW practices on business performance? RQ-2A. What are integrative Conceptualization The outcomes of NWW socio-material outcomes of of NWW-practice practices develop beyond NWW practices? Which outcomes traditional performance theories will inform their outcomes like productivity, conceptualization? work-life balance, or motivation. They cover their RQ-2B. Which innovation own ‘newness’ like socioorganizational capabilities are material performance, enabled by NWW? Which engagement with new individual innovative work technologies, loss of resources, behaviours are enabled by or interconnectivity NWW? dimensions. RQ-2C. What are the levels of analysis to be taken into account to measure the outcomes of NWW practices? Management competences

Leadership styles that are praised in a ‘traditional’ business environment seem to work for NWW, too: enabling empowerment, trust and output-orientation. The challenge is to find a new angle and balance between different leadership styles that

RQ-3A. What is the optimal configuration of leadership styles in the NWW environment to enhance performance? RQ-3B. What is the optimal architecture of the ‘goalsetting-trust’ leadership and technology-enabled performance?

Outlook: Some HR Implications towards Normal Ways of Working

167

Table 1. Continued. Building Blocks of NWW Model

Research Challenge

Research Questions

are in combination, fit best NWW.

RQ-3C. Which NWW contextual factors influence the relationship between leadership styles and performance?

Employees have to learn (new) skills to adapt to NWW practices. These competences vary from digital skills, collaborative skills, team skills and self-management skills. The research challenge is to find the appropriate combinations of employee competences for the different NWW practices. Special attention is asked for the selfmanagement skills.

RQ-4A. What are the optimal set and level of employee competences for the different NWW practices?

HR competences

Little research has been done to the role of HR in NWW practices. HR should adapt its policies and practices to the NWW arena. The research challenges are: how and to what extent?

RQ-5A. What are the HR policies and practices that fit the NWW practices? RQ-5B. What are the required HRM competence domains for HR professionals that are effective in NWW?

Theoretical grounds

NWW studies cover diverse and interesting separate concepts but miss an overarching fundamental theory.

RQ-6A. What is an explanatory power of fundamental theories like Systems Theory, RBV, Social Capital, or Socio-Technical Systems in examining the impact of NWW on performance? RQ-6B. What is the unique theoretical positioning of NWW in Organization Theory and Design?

Employee competences

RQ-4B. What are the competences for selfmanagement and how can managers and systems prevent employees to get stressed and burnout from the new freedom in NWW?

168

Tanya Bondarouk and Jan de Leede

to keep their weekly work hours within the limits of their contractual work hours. The findings from this study open a new boundary perspective to conduct a research into individual differences rooted in preferred boundary management styles, that is segmentation or integration, and related boundary creation strategies and individual perceptions of boundary control. To address the boundary-related research questions, we call for a longitudinal research in NWW. However, it is not to pay a tribute to the methodological fashion that has occupied the business research since a decade. The concept of New Ways of Working requires harmonic symbiosis between technology and job design that cannot be achieved overnight, but takes all technological, employees and managerial effort. We are convinced that the true results of the NWW practices can be observed only in a longitudinal manner, when the symbiosis shows first buds. In other words, the concept of NWW reflects a long-lasting phenomenon in organizations, where the span between an intervention (NWW practices) and outcomes (e.g. work-life balance) leads to cumulative results, to be observed over years. De Leede and Heuver in Chapter 3 explore new ways of supervising corresponding with NWW, from command-and-control towards goal-setting-andtrust. This chapter describes the trend and provides new data on the actual use and effectiveness of these new supervision styles. It appears to be a mix of three leadership styles: leading by vision, setting targets, and control on output, providing trust. The authors test a model in which three leadership behaviours are assumed to moderate the relationships between NWW and performance. The results indicated that neither of the leadership behaviours had significant moderator effects on the relationship. Instead, the leadership behaviours and NWW were found to be linked directly. Leadership styles that encourage empowerment, trust and output-control enhance the commitment and are favourable to NWW practices to a certain extent. It is important to look for the optimal use of NWW. The study is among the first to prove the relationship between NWW and organizational commitment and more importantly, it is one of the first in providing empirical evidence on different leadership behaviours in explaining the organizational outcome of NWW. In Chapter 4 De Leede and Nijland explore the role of teamwork behaviours in NWW. The authors test a model with five teamwork behaviours (communication, mutual support, balanced member contributions, mutual performance monitoring and team cohesion) that are assumed to moderate the relationships between NWW and productivity and commitment. The findings indicate no significant moderating effects, but direct effects. It seems that teamwork as such is important. Still it is important to know more about the relationship between teamwork and NWW. More studies are welcomed, both qualitatively in-depth case studies and longitudinal research to unravel the complex relationships. In the end the question is how to design and manage work teams that work (partly) at a distance. The global virtual team literature brings a lot, but the special characteristics of NWW especially if it really becomes Normal Ways of Working ask for more insights.

Outlook: Some HR Implications towards Normal Ways of Working

169

In Chapter 5 Moll and De Leede explored the effects of the three components of new ways of working on innovative work behaviour. By means of exploratory interviews the author found that the employment of NWW had various positive influences on innovative work behaviour. The freedom provided by NWW induced a greater sense of responsibility among employees, and ultimately created an environment that facilitated employees in exerting innovative work behaviour, and increased the innovative capacity of the workforce. Next to the positive effects, this study found also evidence for the risk of professional and social isolation due to the far-reaching spatial and temporal freedom granted by NWW. It showed the crucial importance to maintain regular face-to-face contact, monitor the effects of NWW and deliberately determine the extent of NWW usage to prevent professional and social isolation. The authors also discuss a need to investigate the factors that determine the ‘optimal extent’ of NWW usage. In their view, understanding how to configure the three core practices of NWW would ultimately contribute to creating the most optimal conditions for reaping the benefits of NWW on innovative work behaviour and simultaneously avoiding its drawbacks. Speaking of innovative work behaviour, it might be challenging to test which steps of this behaviour can be best supported by NWW practices. The research into innovation shows that it is not extremely difficult to enable employees to generate new ideas. What, however, matters is how to put those ideas in practice, how to implement and internalize them in a routine organizational life. We are convinced that the NWW offers a brilliant arena for innovativeness among employees, due to its basic principle freedom and anytime all-the-time working. However, the full potential of NWW to enrich the innovative work behaviour of individuals is the avenue for the future research. How to involve employees, who work on-line and any-place, to contribute to the innovation performance of the organization? We suggest to lift this concept to the organizational level how to ensure that innovation organizational capabilities grow with the NWW? Supporting, orchestrating and capitalizing on innovation and dynamic capabilities is to be a new role of NWW practices and the next research focus. Blok, van der Meulen and Dhondt in Chapter 6 explored whether the NWW approach offered sufficient tools to provide effective solutions for occurring objectives. The authors observed that the NWW approach misses a coherent theoretical foundation for the design of organizations. NWW focuses on loose aspects of organizations, like workspace, work design, management, organizational culture and competences. We could add to this list other dimensions like leadership styles, innovative work behaviour, work-life balance, and boundary-seeking behaviour. The authors argued that due to the lack of a work design approach no framework exists to test whether the introduction of NWW fits to the organization and how work is organized and divided. We would add to this argument that we indeed need to build research into NWW on fundamental theories that would allow to examine a joint effect of organizational, technological and job design, and its effects on performance.

170

Tanya Bondarouk and Jan de Leede

HRM Competences: New or Old? To our great surprise, there is no research to-date about HRM competences that are needed to conform to and lead Normal New Ways of Working. A sceptical reader may rightly notice that firstly, perhaps there is no need to study them; and secondly, the HRM research theatre has seen enough about different HRM roles. We are aware of such a view, but we cannot emphasize enough how important it is for HRM leaders to follow business developments, and how vital to the businesses is that they monitor normal new ways of working! Which concrete activities do HR professionals engage in as part of their roles to support NWW? Speaking of conventional HRM research, much of it is largely normative and/or based on abstract classifications of the roles undertaken by HR professionals. There is an urgent need to enhance our knowledge of what HR professionals really do what kind of activities take place within the daily work of the HR function? Building on recent theorizing about the importance of the HRM process (since Bowen & Ostroff, 2004) we propose to study HRM in and for NWW as the social-material dynamic process, enacted and hindered by HR processionals. By observing the HR profession and HR professionals over the years, Ulrich and colleagues (2008) tried to define and deliver a new set of expectations for HR professionals and rooted these expectations into a set of HRM competences. Since 1988, Ulrich and colleagues have repeated their observations for their so-called Human Resource Competency Study (HRCS) several times, and came up with diverse sets of HRM roles (Table 2). Table 2: Development of HRM competence domains over time (Ulrich et al., 2008). Round 1: 1988

Round 2: 1992

Round 3: 1997

Business knowledge

Business knowledge

Business knowledge

HR delivery

Change

Round 4: 2002

Round 5: 2007/2008

Business knowledge

Business ally

HR delivery HR delivery

HR delivery

Talent manager/ Organization designer Operational executor

Change

Change

Strategic contribution

Personal credibility

Culture

Culture & change steward Strategy architect

Personal credibility HR technology

Credible activist

Personal credibility

Operational executor

Outlook: Some HR Implications towards Normal Ways of Working

171

Past research, however, has developed different classifications of the roles played by HR professionals (for seminal classifications, see Evans, Pucik, & Barsoux, 2002; Storey, 1992; Tyson & Fell, 1986; Ulrich, 1997). Recently other HRM scholars suggested a detailed look at the conventional HR roles (e.g. Caldwell, 2008; Lawler, Boudreau, & Mohrman, 2006; Ulrich, Younger, & Brockbank, 2008; Wright, 2008). For several decades, HRM process and content development (Ulrich & Brockbank, 2005 refer to it as the ‘functional expert’ role) has been a core task of the HR function. In recent years, however, technological developments have presented new challenges for this role. How to achieve a balance between technologically advanced channels to organize the workforce systems and keep a personal touch in leadership, how to transfer HRM practices found to be effective in the face to-face environment towards NWW, and how to ensure that the NWW practices implemented in organizations support the achievement of business objectives. The typical diagnosis has been that important but non-strategic HRM transactional tasks are coming at the cost of time and attention dedicated to true valueadded HRM activities. Involvement of the application of IT in HRM opened up new possibilities for standardized service delivery, leading to responses with three connected points. First, the automation of transactional processes and the removal of intermediaries has facilitated self-service, that is shifting work to the employees and managers. Second, the optimization of HRM services has facilitated the transfer of HR shared-service centres. Third, appropriate HR transactional tasks, such as those performed in shared-service centres, are typical candidates to be outsourced. Regardless of the solutions chosen for HR service delivery there are a number of questions concerning the organization, implementation, and output of such services for the New Ways of Working: Who will be involved and/or accountable? What will be the effects on user satisfaction, the content of HRM practices and processes, the roles played by the HR function, and the overall effectiveness of the services? In Table 3 we present the HRM competence domains with the requirements for the HR professionals that in our view are important for NWW (Based on Maurer & Weiss, 2010; Storey, Wright, & Ulrich, 2009; Ulrich, Brockbank, Johnson, & Younger, 2007).

Towards Normal Ways of Working What can we conclude? After having set a research agenda with many new and old research questions, after having outlined a list of new and old competences for HR in NWW environments, we may safely conclude that New Ways of Working is ‘just’ normal working. Many management competences remain the same. Many employee skills remain the same. Many HR competences remain the same. The essence still is to do work as effectively and efficiently and worker-friendly as possible. That is the classic organization question. Still, business challenges, the possibilities of new technology and the needs from the labour market demand new forms of

172

Tanya Bondarouk and Jan de Leede

Table 3: HRM competences: Old or new? Business focus: Knowing how the business works and understanding how decisions to implement NWW influence the organization 1. Business knowledge (knowledge of the social context, value chain, and value proposition)

Knowledge about the value chain, value proposition, and social context of the business to be able to influence business decisions (Ulrich, Brockbank, Johnson, Sondholtz, & Younger, 2008)

2. Organization sensitivity

Understanding of an impact and implications of decisions to implement NWW on a department, and all components of the organization

Learning focus: Gaining new knowledge or skills 1. Continuous learning

Ability to continuously gain new skills and develop professionally

2. Learning by doing

Capability to improve productivity by regularly repeating the same type of actions

3. Self-knowledge

HR professionals should understand one’s own role in the NWW, abilities, and limitations in supporting it

HR delivery: Executing operational aspects of managing people and organization that are traditionally associated with the HR function (Ulrich et al., 2008) 1. HR measurement

2. HR organization capability

3. Legal compliance

4. Operational knowledge 5. Staffing

6. Development

To measure how much the HR activities add value to the HR value proposition in the environment of NWW To have an overview of resources that are needed to accomplish NWW and to effectively mobilize the resources on the right place in a short amount of time. To monitor progress and take action when needed. To have knowledge about legal issues that influence and safeguard people at work within the environment of NWW To have knowledge about the operational level of NWW To create a comprehensive staffing process of staffing practices hiring, promoting, transferring, firing that supports To offer training programs to employees and to take change interventions at the organization and team level to implement NWW

Outlook: Some HR Implications towards Normal Ways of Working

173

Table 3. Continued. 7. Performance management

To design and deliver performance management systems that consist of measuring performance in the environment of NWW

HR technology: Using IT applications to help accomplish HR tasks 1. Facilitating skills 2. Knowledge of HR technology

To be concerned with facilitating HR technology To have knowledge about technical possibilities to facilitate NWW

3. Architectural knowledge

To be able to map HR practices and HR actors within the NWW environment

Personal credibility: Being credible in personal and interpersonal relationships with all parties HR professionals serve (Boselie & Paauwe, 2005) 1. Achieving results

To be committed and to do what one says he will do and to achieve results that are error-free and meet the highest standards of integrity

2. Consultancy skills

To have effective written and verbal communication skills to clearly communicate critical messages for organizational success

3. Conversation partner

To facilitate and play an active role in conversation practice To identify with and understand another’s situation, feelings, and motives by imaginatively entering into another person’s feelings

4. Empathy

5. Independence

To take actions based on own convincement which are guided by one’s own opinion and dare to disagree with decisions

6. Open-mindness

To be receptive to new and different ideas and the opinion of others

Strategic focus: Focus on working at the strategic level 1. Analytical thinking

To separate and distinguish elements of a concept (idea, problem) in order to understand its essential nature and inner relationships

2. Change management

To shift individuals, teams, and organizations from a current state to a desired future state of NWW To be someone who undertakes innovations, finance and business acumen in an effort to transform innovations into economic goods

3. Entrepreneurship and innovation

174

Tanya Bondarouk and Jan de Leede

Table 3. Continued. 4. Feasibility analysis

5. Leadership

6. Market-driven connectivity

To objectively and rationally uncover the strengths and weaknesses of the existing business, opportunities and threats as presented by the environment To let people know the direction in which the organization wants to go and let them know the goals. To create commitment with goals, when people make decisions let them be aware of the goals To take on signals from the external environment and translate these into the organization to respond to market demands

7. Organizational commitment

To set high standards on own work, in which the work is focused on the priorities and goals of the organization

8. Result orientation

To be actively oriented on realizing goals and results in which one makes good appointments about ones’ tasks and responsibilities

work. The NWW practices as outlined and studied in this volume show how businesses cope with these contemporary challenges. In an abstract way, it is not entirely new. Nevertheless, for the decade to come it is a big challenge to many business leaders and HR leaders to create new answers to the combination of these contemporary demands. And for academics, it is a must to accommodate business practice with knowledge from the past and the present. Because the academic field contains as a discipline a lot of knowledge and one of our major challenges is to align that with practice. In short, New Ways of Working will become the Normal Ways of Working, as both practitioners and academics will witness.

References Boselie, P., & Paauwe, J. (2005). Human resource function competencies in European companies. Personnel Review, 34(5), 550 566. Bowen, D. E., & Ostroff, C. (2004). Understanding HRM firm performance linkages: The role of “Strength” of the HRM system. Academy of Management Review, 29, 203 221. Caldwell, R. (2008). HR business partner competencies models: Recontextualising effectiveness. Human Resource Management Journal, 18(3), 275 294. Evans, P., Pucik, V., & Barsoux, J.-L. (2002). The global challenge. Frameworks for international human resource management. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Lawler, E. E., Boudreau, J. W., & Mohrman, S. A. (2006). Achieving strategic excellence: An assessment of human resource organizations. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Outlook: Some HR Implications towards Normal Ways of Working

175

Maurer, T., & Weiss, E. (2010). Continuous learning skill demands: Associations with managerial job content, age, and experience. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 1 13. Storey, J. (1992). Developments in the management of human resources. London: Blackwell Business. Storey, J., Wright, P. M., & Ulrich, D. (2009). The Routledge companion to strategic human resource management. New York, NY: Routledge. Tyson, S., & Fell, A. (1986). Evaluating the personnel function. London: Hutchinson. Ulrich, D. (1997). Human resource champions. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Ulrich, D., & Brockbank, W. (2005). The HR value proposition. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press. Ulrich, D., Brockbank, W., Johnson, D., & Younger, J. (2007). Human resource competencies: Responding to increased expectations. Employment Relations Today, 34(3), 1 12. Ulrich, D., Brockbank, W., Johnson, D., Sondholtz, K., & Younger, J. (2008). HR competencies. Alexandria, Virginia: The RBL Institute. Ulrich, D., Younger, J., & Brockbank, W. (2008). The twenty-first-century HR organization. Human Resource Management, 47(4), 829 850. Wright, C. (2008). Reinventing human resource management: Business partners, internal consultants and the limits to professionalisation. Human Relations, 61(8), 1063 1086.