Abstracts
Summary
The purpose of this paper is to examine the degree of alignment of organizational strategies with two types of telework using Statistics Canada’s 2005 Workplace and Employee Survey data. In this paper, we intentionally use the most inclusive definition of telework, because we are interested in all cases where an employee works from home at least some of the time. We consider telework to be ‘employee-oriented’ when an employee works at home to address his and her family-related or personal wants or needs, and ‘employer-oriented’ when an employee works at home due to the employer’s strategic or operational objectives. The three organizational strategies that we considered were innovation, involvement, and cost-containment. We found that employers focusing on innovation were significantly more likely than other employers to use both types of telework, with greater emphasis on employee-oriented telework, whereas employers using an involvement strategy were less likely to use either type of telework, albeit at only a weak level of significance. Moreover, we did not find a statistical relationship between the cost containment strategy and either type of telework. We hypothesized that employee-oriented telework would be more common among workers in workplaces focusing on innovation or involvement, but less common among workers in workplaces focusing on cost containment. We hypothesized the reverse situation for the incidence of employer-oriented telework. On the whole, the results suggested that employers are not universally aligning the implementation of the two types of telework with their organizational strategies. Rather, either telework is not commonly used as a strategic tool or, alternatively, the strategic implementation of these two types of telework is more contingent upon other organizational or employee factors in specific circumstances.
Keywords:
- telework,
- home-based work,
- innovation,
- cost-containment,
- work-family balance
Résumé
Dans cet article nous proposons d’examiner le degré d’alignement des stratégies organisationnelles selon deux types de télétravail, et ce, à partir des données de l’Enquête sur le milieu de travail et les employés de 2005 de Statistiques Canada. Nous adoptons intentionnellement la définition la plus inclusive du télétravail qui soit parce que nous nous intéressons à toutes les situations où un employé travaille à partir de son domicile et ce, pour au moins une partie de son temps de travail. Nous considérons que le télétravail est « orienté vers l’employé » lorsqu’un employé travaille à domicile pour répondre à ses souhaits ou à ses besoins pour des raisons familiales ou personnelles, et est « orienté vers l’employeur », lorsqu’un employé travaille à domicile pour répondre à un objectif stratégique et opérationnel de son employeur. Les trois stratégies organisationnelles que nous avons retenues sont l’innovation, l’implication et le contrôle des coûts.
Nos résultats suggèrent que les employeurs qui mettent l’accent sur la stratégie de l’innovation sont significativement plus susceptibles de recourir à l’un ou l’autre des deux types de télétravail (« orienté vers l’employé » et « orienté vers l’employeur ») tout en favorisant un télétravail « orienté vers l’employé », tandis que les employeurs qui ont recours à une stratégie d’implication étaient moins susceptibles de faire appel à l’un ou l’autre type de télétravail, quoiqu’à un plus faible degré de signification. De plus, nous n’avons pas observé de relation statistique entre le recours à la stratégie de contrôle des coûts et une forme ou l’autre de télétravail.
Nous avions formulé l’hypothèse que le télétravail orienté vers l’employé serait plus répandu chez les employeurs mettant l’accent sur l’innovation ou sur l’implication et moins répandu chez ceux mettant l’accent sur le contrôle des coûts. Et nous avions fait l’hypothèse inverse en ce qui attrait au télétravail orienté vers l’employeur. Globalement, nos résultats laissent à penser que les employeurs n’alignent pas systématiquement la mise en oeuvre des deux types de télétravail avec leurs stratégies organisationnelles. Plutôt, soit le télétravail n’est pas généralement utilisé comme un outil stratégique, soit la mise en oeuvre de ces deux types de télétravail dépend davantage de facteurs organisationnels ou liés aux personnes employées selon des circonstances spécifiques.
Mots-clés :
- télétravail,
- travail à domicile,
- innovation,
- réduction des coûts,
- conciliation travail-famille
Resumen
En este artículo, se propone examinar el grado de alineamiento de estrategias organizacionales según dos tipos de teletrabajo, utilizando para esto los datos de la Encuesta sobre los lugares de trabajo y los empleados de 2005 efectuada por Estadísticas Canadá. Se adopta intencionalmente la definición más amplia del teletrabajo, pues el estudio aborda todas las situaciones en que un empleado trabaja a partir de su domicilio, al menos por una parte de su tiempo de trabajo. Consideramos que el teletrabajo está “orientado hacia el empleado” cuando un empleado trabaja a domicilio para responder a sus deseos o a sus necesidades por razones familiares o personales. Al contrario, el teletrabajo será “orientado hacia el empleador” cuando un empleado trabaja a domicilio para responder a un objetivo estratégico y operacional de su empleador. Las tres estrategias operacionales que hemos retenido son la innovación, la implicación y el control de costos.
Nuestros resultados sugieren que los empleadores que ponen el acento en la estrategia de innovación son significativamente más susceptibles de recurrir a uno de los dos tipos de teletrabajo (“orientado hacia el empleado” y “orientado hacia el empleador”), favoreciendo al mismo tiempo teletrabajo “orientado hacia el empleado”, mientras que los empleadores que recurren a una estrategia de implicación son menos susceptibles de utilizar uno u otro tipo de teletrabajo, aunque a un menor grado de significación. Es más, no hemos observado ninguna relación estadística entre el recurso a la estrategia de control de costos y una forma u otra de teletrabajo.
Hemos formulado la hipótesis que el teletrabajo orientado hacia el empleado sería más extendido por los empleadores que ponen el acento en la innovación o en la implicación, y sería menos presente cuando el empleador pone el acento en el control de costos. Y formulamos la hipótesis inversa en lo que concierne el teletrabajo orientado hacia el empleador. Globalmente nuestros resultados sugieren que los empleadores no alinean sistemáticamente la implantación de dos formas de teletrabajo con sus respectivas estrategias organizacionales. Dos situaciones alternativas son observadas, sea el teletrabajo no es utilizado como instrumento estratégico o, en alternativa, la implantación de estos dos tipos de teletrabajo dependen más bien de factores organizacionales o son vinculados a las personas empleadas según circunstancias específicas.
Palabras clave:
- teletrabajo,
- trabajo a domicilio,
- régimen de trabajo flexible,
- innovación,
- conciliación trabajo-familia
Appendices
References
- Akyeampong, Ernest B. 2007. “Working at Home: an Update”. Perspectives on Labour and Income, 8 (6), 16-8. Statistics Canada, 75-001-XIE.
- Bailey, Diane E. and Nancy B. Kurland. 2002. “A Review of Telework Research: Findings, New Directions, and Lessons for the Study of Modern Work”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 383-400.
- Boulin, Jean-Yves, Michel Lallement and François Michon. 2006. “Decent Working Time in Industrialized Countries: Issues, Scopes, and Paradoxes”, in J.Y. Boulin, M. Lallement, J. Messenger, & F. Michon (eds.), Decent Working Time, New Trends New Issues, Geneva, SWI: ILO, 13-40.
- Chowhan, James and Neil J. Buckley. 2005. “Using Mean Bootstrap Weights in Stata: A BSWREG revision”, The Research Data Centres Information and Technical Bulletin, 2 (1), 23-37. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 12-002-XIE.
- Clear, Fintan and Keith Dickson. 2005. “Teleworking Practice in Small and Medium-sized Firms: Management Style and Worker Autonomy”, New Technology, Work and Employment, 20 (3), 218-233.
- Cooke, Gordon B., Zeytinoglu, Isik U., Agarwal, N. & Rose, J.B. 2008. “Employee-friendly and Employer-friendly Non-standard Work Schedules and Locations.” International Journal of Employment Studies, 16 (2), 31-66.
- Delery, John E. and D. Harold Doty. 1996. “Modes of Theorizing in Strategic Human Resource Management: Tests of Universalistic, Contingency, and Configurational Performance Predictions”, Academy of Management Journal, 39 (4), 802-835.
- Devine, Kay S., Laurel Taylor and Kathy Haryett. 1997. “The Impact of Teleworking on Canadian Employment”, in Duffy, D., Glenday, D. and Pupo, N. (eds.) Good Jobs, Bad Jobs, No Jobs: The Transformation of Work in the 21st Century, Toronto, CAN: Harcourt Brace, 238-287.
- Duxbury, Linda and Derrick Neufeld. 1999. “An Empirical Evaluation of the Impacts of Telecommuting on Intra-organizational Communication”, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 16 (1), 1-28.
- Gerhart, Barry, Patrick M. Wright, and Gary C. McMahan. 2000. “Measurement Error in Research on the Human Resources and Firm Performance Relationship: Further Evidence and Analysis”, Personnel Psychology, 53 (4), 855-872.
- Golden, Timothy D. 2012. “Altering the Effects of Work and Family Conflict on Exhaustion: Telework during Traditional and Nontraditional Work Hours”, Journal of Business & Psychology, 27 (3), 255-269.
- Golden, Timothy D. and John F. Veiga. 2005. “The Impact of Extent of Telecommuting on Job Satisfaction: Resolving Inconsistent Findings”, Journal of Management, 31 (2), 301-318.
- Haddon, Leslie and Malcolm Brynin. 2005. “The Character of Telework and the Characteristics of Teleworkers”, New Technology, Work and Employment, 20 (1), 34-46.
- Hausknecht, John P., Julianne Rodda, and Michael J. Howard. 2009. “Targeted Employee Retention, Performance-based and Job-related Differences in Reported Reasons for Staying”, Human Resource Management, 48 (2), 269-288.
- Hilbrecht, Margo, Susan M. Shaw, Laura C. Johnson, and Jean Andrey. 2013. “Remixing Work, Family and Leisure: Teleworkers’ Experiences of Everyday Life”, New Technology, Work and Employment, 28 (2), 130-144.
- Huselid, Mark. 1995. “The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices on Turnover, Productivity, and Corporate Financial Performance”, Academy of Management Journal, 38 (3), 635-672.
- Jiang, Kaifeng, David P. Lepak, Jia Hu, and Judith C. Baer. 2012. “How Does Human Resource Management Influence Organizational Outcomes? A Meta-analytic Investigation of Mediating Mechanisms”, Academy of Management Journal, 55 (6), 1264-1294.
- Kochan, Thomas A., Harry C. Katz, and Robert B. McKersie, R.B. [KKM]. 1986. The Transformation of American Industrial Relations. NY, US: Basic Books.
- KPMG Canada. 1997. 1997 Telework Survey, http:///ww.kpmg.ca/hr/telcmut.html.
- Martinez-Sanchez, Angel, Manuela Perez-Perez, Marie J. Vela-Jimenez and Pilar de-Luis-Carnicer. 2008. “Telework Adoption, Change Management, and Firm Performance”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, 21 (1), 7-31.
- Mayo, Margarita, Juan-Carlos Pastor, Luis Gomez-Mejia and Christina Cruz. 2009. “Why some Firms Adopt Telecommuting while others do not: a Contingency Perspective”, Human Resource Management, 48 (6), 917– 939.
- Morgan, Robert E. 2004. “Teleworking: an Assessment of the Benefits and Challenges”, European Business Review, 16 (4), 344-357.
- Nunes, Flavio. 2005. “Most Relevant Enablers and Constraints Influencing the Spread of Telework in Portugal”, New Technology, Work and Employment, 20, 2, 133-149.
- Peters, Pascale, Laura de Dulk and Judith de Ruijter. 2010. “May I work from Home? Views of the Employment Relationship reflected in Line Managers’ Telework Attitudes in six Financial-sector Organizations”, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 29 (5), 517-531.
- Schweitzer, Linda and Linda Duxbury. 2006. “Benchmarking the Use of Telework Arrangements in Canada”, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 23 (2), 105-117.
- Sullivan, Cath and Suzan Lewis. 2001. “Home-based Telework, Gender, and the Synchronization of Work and Family: Perspectives of Teleworkers and their Co-residents”, Gender, Work and Organization, 8 (2), 123-145.
- Taskin, Laurent and Paul Edwards. 2007. “The Possibilities and Limits of Telework in a Bureaucratic Environment: Lessons from the Public Sector”, New Technology, Work and Employment, 22 (3), 195-207.
- Tietze, Suzanne. 2002. “When Work comes Home: Coping Strategies of Teleworkers and their Families”, Journal of Business Ethics, 41 (4), 385-396.
- Templer, Andrew, Marjorie Armstrong-Stassen, Kay Devine and Norm Solomon. 1999. “Telework and Teleworkers”, in I.U. Zeytinoglu (ed.), Changing Work Relationships in Industrialized Economies, Philadelphia, US: John Benjamins Publ., 77-95.
- Tomaskovic-Devey, Donald and Barbara Risman. 1993. “Telecommuting Innovation and Organization: A Contingency Theory of Labor Process Change”, Social Science Quarterly, 72 (2), 367-385.
- Tremblay, Diane-Gabrielle. 2002. “Balancing Work and Family with Telework? Organizational Issues and Challenges for Women and Managers”, Women in Management Review, 17 (3/4), 157-170.
- Tremblay, Diane-Gabrielle and Elmustapha Najem. 2010. « Le travail à domicile au Canada: qui le pratique et pourquoi? », Gestion, 35 (1), 108-117.
- Tremblay, Diane-Gabrielle, Renaud Paquet, and Elmustapha Najem. 2006. “Telework: A Way to Balance Work and Family or an Increase in Work-family Conflict?”, Canadian Journal of Communication, 31 (3), 715-731.
- Vallée, Guylaine. 2005. Towards Enhancing the Employment Conditions of Vulnerable Workers: A Public Policy Perspective. Vulnerable Workers Series. No. 2. March. Canadian Policy Research Networks. 57 p. http://www.cprn.ca/documents/35588_en.pdf (accessed July 10, 2009).
- Verbeke, Alain, Robert Schulz, Nathan Greidanus and Laura Hambley. 2008. Growing the Virtual Workplace: The Integrative Value Proposition for Telework, Cheltenham, UK & Northampton, US: Edward Elgar.
- Wilks, Linda and Jon Billsberry. 2007. “Should we do Away with Teleworking? An Examination of whether Teleworking can be defined in the New World of Work”, New Technology, Work and Employment, 22 (2), 168-177.
- Workplace and Employee Survey [WES]. 2008. 2005 Compendium, Statistics Canada catalogue: 71-585-X, accessed on 12 May 2010 at http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/71-585-x/71-585-x2008001-eng.htm.
- Wright, Patrick M. and Gary C. McMahan. 1992. “Theoretical Perspectives for Strategic Human Resource Management”, Journal of Management, 18 (2), 295-320.
- Wright, Patrick M. and Gary C. McMahan. 2011. “Exploring Human Capital: putting Human back into Strategic Human Resource Management”, Human Resource Management Journal, 21 (2), 93-104.
- Zeytinoglu, Isik U. 1999. “Introduction and Overview”, in I.U. Zeytinoglu (ed.), Changing Work Relationships in Industrialized Economies, Philadelphia, US: John Benjamins Publ., ix-xx.
- Zeytinoglu, Isik U., Cooke Gordon B., & Mann, S.L. 2009. “Flexibility: whose Choice is it anyway?” Relations Industrielles/Industrial Relations, 64 (4), 555-574.