looking for people, places and connections: hindrances when working in multiple locations: a review

Looking for people, places and connections:hindrances when working in multiple

locations: a review

Johanna Koroma, Ursula Hyrkkänen andMatti Vartiainen

Mobile multi-locational workers move a lot spatially, utilisedifferent locations for work and communicate with others viaelectronic tools. This article presents an analysis of previouslypublished empirical studies focusing on mobile workers’experiences of hindrances in five types of locations. Our reviewshows that some of the hindrances are unique for certain typesof locations, while others recur in all or most of them. Thechange of physical locations results in continuous searching fora place to work and remaining socially as an outsider in allcommunities, including the main office. Limited connectionsand access in used locations seem to be the main challenges ofvirtual spaces despite of the recent developments in technology.In addition, we discuss the importance to consider hindrancescaused by changing contexts as job demands, which can beinfluenced in work re/designing process.

Keywords: hindrances, mobile work, multi-locality, physical,virtual, social environment, space.

IntroductionThe increasing number of smart mobile devices and wireless connections influencesthe way people approach their work and their life. Mobile technologies and wirelessconnections in particular make it possible to work not only in and from multiple placesbut also when moving between locations. This has been advertised to employers andemployees as the positive potential to work ‘anytime, anywhere’. From a time perspec-tive, mobile technologies allow employees to work evenings, weekends and duringvacations from different locations even after spending a full day or week working at theoffice (Towers et al., 2006). The positive expression of potentials, however, underesti-mates the contextual constraints that mobile workers may experience when workingfrom different locations and while ‘on the move’ (Perry et al., 2001; Axtell et al., 2008).In this review, which is based on published empirical studies, we show that mobileworkers often find themselves in places where the possibilities to accomplish work-

Johanna Koroma ([email protected]) is a Ph.D. student in Virtual and Mobile Work ResearchUnit at BIT Research Centre of Aalto University, Espoo, Finland. Ursula Hyrkkänen ([email protected]), Ph.D., is a director of research and development at the Turku University ofApplied Science, RDI Centre, Turku, Finland. Matti Vartiainen ([email protected]) is a professorof work and organizational psychology at the Department of Industrial Engineering and Management,Aalto University School of Science, Espoo, Finland.

New Technology, Work and Employment 29:2ISSN 0268-1072

© 2014 Aalto University. New Technology,Work and Employment © 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Hindrances when working in multiple locations 139

related tasks are limited or even impossible due to environmental constraints and alack of resources (Brown and O’Hara, 2003; Perry and Brodie, 2006). We use the conceptof a mobile multi-locational worker to refer to those employees who frequently movespatially, who use different locations for work and who communicate with others viaelectronic tools as they are both physically and virtually mobile (e.g. Hyrkkänen andVartiainen, 2005; Gareis et al., 2006). Virtual mobility makes it possible to collaboratewith others from multiple locations in virtual and widely distributed teams (Lipnackand Stamps, 2000).

A limited amount of research results are available on the effects that mobile andmulti-locational work have on the everyday working life of the worker and, especially,what the workers perceive as the greatest hindrances in their working environments.Current research (e.g. Becker and Sims, 2000; Hill et al., 2003; Harrison et al., 2004;Felstead et al., 2005; Uhmavaara et al., 2005; Hislop and Axtell, 2009; Bosch-Sijtsemaet al., 2010; Vartiainen and Hyrkkänen, 2010) is controversial as it shows that while thecompany and employee recognise that there are benefits to mobile working, there arealso drawbacks, which very often are experienced on an individual level as an increasein workload. Our study provides a thorough exploration of the empirical studies anddescribes the everyday work life of a mobile multi-locational worker. The main contri-bution of the review is to identify the hindrances that arise due to workload factors inthe multiple locations used on a daily basis and, therefore, to distinguish the require-ments of this type of work from collocated work. For the purposes of this study, wedraw on the job demands–resources model (the JD-R model) developed by Demeroutiet al. (2001) and Bakker and Demerouti (2007), and we concentrate on the job demandsthat employees perceive as hindrances that result in exhaustion and a loss of vigour(Van den Broeck et al., 2010) and engagement (Crawford et al., 2010). Even though thereviewed articles are written from different perspectives, together they offer a com-prehensive understanding as to why working in different locations and spaces cannotbe summarised by the ‘anytime, anywhere’ expression.

Conceptual background

Workload factors

In mobile multi-locational work, workload factors are influenced not only by thecomplexity of one organisation, its resources and its tasks (Carayon and Zijlstra, 1999)but also by the multiple work environments from which the work is executed(Hyrkkänen and Vartiainen, 2005; 2007; Axtell et al., 2008; Vartiainen and Hyrkkänen,2010). External workload factors refer to those factors that impinge upon a humanbeing and result in mental strain, which may have either positive, short- or long-termconsequences (such as increased vigour, engagement and motivation) or negative,short- or long-term consequences (such as fatigue and exhaustion) on employee well-being (Richter and Hacker, 1998). According to the JD-R model, the employee well-being outcomes can be operationalised as experiences of work engagement (i.e. vigour,dedication and absorption) (Maslach and Leiter, 1997; Schaufeli et al., 2002) or burnout,including exhaustion, cynicism and reduced personal efficacy (Maslach et al., 1996;2001). The extant research indicates that the JD-R model is suitable for studying theprocess that causes the draining of employees’ mental and physical energy (Hakanenand Roodt, 2010). In the JD-R model, job demands denote the physical, psychological,social and organisational aspects of a job that require sustained physical and/orpsychological efforts or skills (Demerouti et al., 2001). Job demands may turn into jobstressors when meeting those demands requires considerable efforts from which theemployee has not adequately recovered or when the work does not provide sufficientjob resources to counterbalance the strain (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007). For example,the individual’s ability to control (Karasek, 1979; Karasek and Theorell, 1990; Bakkerand Demerouti, 2007) the multiple environments encountered or the lack of suchcontrol results in either well-being or stress.


140 New Technology, Work and Employment

The category of job demands has been found to be not as homogeneous as initiallysuggested, but rather it is divided into two factors: challenge-related and hindrance-related stressors (e.g. Cavanaugh et al., 2000; Podsakoff et al., 2007; Van den Broeck et al.,2010). Challenge demands are stressors that stimulate to put effort on the task and helpto achieve goals. They relate positively to well-being but do not protect from theill-health (Van den Broeck et al., 2010). The extant literature suggests that hindrances(Crawford et al., 2010), daily issues (Zohar, 1999; Mark et al., 2005), discontinuities(Watson-Manheim et al., 2002), discrepancies (Mandler, 1990; Jett and George, 2003)and interruptions (Perlow, 1999; Ziljstra et al., 1999) constitute similar phenomena asthey all constrain work-related accomplishments by affecting goal-directed activities,action regulation and, consequently, employee well-being. According to recent studies,job demands that employees perceive as hindrances are positively associated withexhaustion and negatively associated with vigour (Van den Broeck et al., 2010) andengagement (Crawford et al., 2010). However, hindrances related to working in fre-quently changing physical locations and social work environments and impedimentsrelated to using various virtual environments are not considered job demands in thecurrent literature.

Spaces and places

The concept ‘ba’, introduced by Nonaka, Toyama and Konno (2000), provides theopportunity to analyse multi-locational work environments and their workload factorsin a systematic manner. ‘Ba’ refers to a shared space in which knowledge is created,shared and exploited by those who interact and communicate within that space. Theconcept of ‘ba’ combines physical spaces with virtual and social spaces shared bypeople working alone or together towards common goals and helps to understand theembeddedness of spaces used to complete the tasks in different locations. Physicalspace refers to the specific characteristics of each location where a mobile and multi-locational worker necessarily exists as a corporeal being. Virtual space refers to theavailability and use of digital tools and infrastructures as a layer of the working context,while social space includes those people in each location as well as those in the virtualworking environments with whom one can communicate and collaborate. In ouranalysis, we divide physical workspaces into five types of places to work, and we usethe concept of ‘ba’ to be able to add the virtual and social spaces to the analysisframework (Hyrkkänen and Vartiainen, 2005; 2007; Nenonen, 2005). The physicalplaces include non-traditional places such as (1) various means of transportationincluding cars, trains, planes and ships (‘moving places’); (2) a customer or partner’spremises or the company’s remote, satellite or telework offices (‘secondary places’);and (3) hotels, cafés, parks, etc. (‘third places’) as well as the more traditional places; (4)the main workplace (‘main office’); and (5) home. In these locations, the availableelectronic working environment, infrastructures, devices and media (virtual spaces) areused for knowledge sharing and collaboration. Both physical and virtual spacesinclude a social communicative layer that involves people engaged either in face-to-facecommunications or in communications mediated by technologies. The salient point inthe conception of multi-locality is that these spaces are embedded in the workingenvironment. The nature of the tasks and contextual factors together with the charac-teristics of the work environment influence the internal regulative processes that indi-viduals and collective subjects, such as teams, must use as they seek to optimise theirrelationships and boundaries with other subjects performing the same tasks, to attaintheir objectives, and to complete the tasks (Vartiainen, 2014). This study focuses onidentifying tasks to be conducted and hindrances arising from the contextual factors infive types of physical places: moving places, secondary places, third places, the mainworkplace and home (Vartiainen and Hyrkkänen, 2010). The purpose of our research isto conceptually integrate new job demands that arise from hindrances originating fromthe use of multiple embedded spaces using the JD-R model, as shown in Figure 1.

We are interested in the hindrances that are externally induced and developed fromthe operational environment. These hindrances are not controlled by an individual



worker, thus disrupting or preventing the goal-oriented activities of mobile workers(Zohar, 1999; Mark et al., 2005). Disturbances are, for example, equipment malfunc-tions, unscheduled changes in task assignments, information difficulties and non-work-related interruptions. As the perceived hindrances can be related to the task athand, we first ask, what tasks are to be performed in the five types of physical spaces?The second research question is what are the perceived hindrances that arise fromworking in these locations? The hindrances are expected to associate with the physical,virtual and social spaces of each location. We proceed as follows. First, we describe thedata and the analysis used for this review. Second, we review the findings regarding thearea of contextual complexity of multi-localities. Finally, based on the findings, weformulate suggestions for future research and theoretical development.

Research data and methodsThis article is based on the analysis of empirical studies. We identified articles onmobile and multi-locational work using three different means. These methods includethe following: (1) a manual search of the leading textbooks and journals on manage-ment and work, real estate and facilities management, computer science, sociology,ergonomics, psychology, and organisational psychology; (2) a systematic search ofseveral electronic multidisciplinary databases (Scopus, Abi/Inform, Academic SearchElite, Web of Science, Google Scholar) using a broad list of relevant terms (e.g. mobilework, multi-locational work, nomadic work, hybrid workspace); and (3) a scan of thereference lists from the articles identified through the first two methods. In studiesdealing with mobile, multi-locational work, the four main sources included manage-ment, real estate and facilities management, social science, and information technology.As we are interested in how the various work places are used, we did not want toexclude any of the disciplines, but rather we wanted to adopt a multidisciplinary scopeproviding that the concept of changing work environments was discussed. Of thestudies identified, we included only recent empirical articles (1999–2011) from peer-reviewed journals and relevant studies that were included in two leading textbooks(Andriessen and Vartiainen, 2006; Hislop, 2008). Ultimately, we identified 20 empiricalarticles relevant to our study. Three of these met our inclusion criteria, but the empiricalfindings did not discuss the concept of mobile multi-locational work. Therefore, we

Challenge demands

Job resources

Job demands arising from1. Tasks

2. Organiza�on

3. Work environmentin mul�ple loca�ons• physical• virtual• social

Burnout

Engagement

Hindrance demands

+

+

+

-

-3. Work environmentin mul�ple loca�ons• physical• virtual• social

Hindrancedemands

+

Figure 1: Hindrances in the physical, virtual and social work environments as related to jobdemands (modified based on Crawford, LePine and Rich, 2010: 841)



excluded these studies from our review. Although most of the remaining 17 studies(Appendix 1) are qualitative case studies, some also present quantitative data.

We focus on studies that address mobile workers who use multiple places forworking rather than using one place outside the main office, such as teleworking fromhome, and their perceptions of the hindrances in the places they use. The analysis wasconducted in the following manner. First, each of the three researchers independentlyread an article and summarised its contents into an excel spreadsheet (MicrosoftCorporation, Redmond, WA, USA) with four columns. The columns were defined asfollows: (1) the authors’ aims, research questions, methods and data; (2) the nature ofthe multi-locality, for example, ‘the article focuses on employees moving within NewYork City working in third places such as cafés, parks and airport lounges’; (3) thehindrances associated with each place, for example, ‘difficulty placing calls because ofnoise and queuing of a table because of peak hour’; and (4) the outcomes of the study,for example, the answer to the research question and the identified impacts on well-being. Second, upon completing the individual analyses, the researchers shared theirsummaries with each other, and a joint meeting was held to cross-check the analyses ofeach article. Each meeting took approximately one hour. The jointly agreed-uponfindings for each article were then recorded on a excel spreadsheet. Third, the identi-fied hindrances were categorised based on the five types of physical locations used forworking. The hindrances were then classified according to their source in the embed-ded physical, virtual and social spaces based on the ‘ba’ model. In addition, the tasksperformed in the five types of physical places were listed. A summary of our findingsshowing the tasks performed and the hindrances associated with the different places ispresented in the next section.

Tasks and hindrances in multiple workplacesThe fundamental differences from collocated work are the use of secondary and thirdplaces to meet other people, to conduct work and to move between locations. Theplaces used by mobile workers can be globally or locally dispersed, but to perform theirwork, the employees must be ‘on the move’. In this chapter, we first show the tasks andhindrances related to the physical and social spaces when a mobile worker usesdifferent modes of transportation, visits secondary and third places as well as when amobile worker returns to the main workplace or home. The hindrances related tovirtual spaces are described at the end of the chapter.

On the move visiting customers and colleagues

Meeting with other people requires two types of preparations: the planning of activitiesfor each place and preparing to be available. Mobile workers typically engage inmultiple tasks in all work places, including micro-tasks, such as short messages andemails, to fill spare time. However, several hindrances were identified with respect tothe modes of transportation and secondary and third work places.

Mobile workers experience unexpected changes in timetables and routes, crampedpremises, and a lack of table and work space, all of which result ergonomic challengesas well as require a constant reorganisation of space and tasks (Axtell et al., 2008; Lyonset al., 2008; Vartiainen and Hyrkkänen, 2010) and all of which affect their work prod-uctivity (Axtell et al., 2008; Bosch-Sijtsema et al., 2010). Since the places they use forwork are quite often public places, the reviewed studies noted that there are significantdifferences between the activities that are or can be executed in private versus publicplaces. Because public places, such as trains, airport lounges and cafes, were notoriginally designed as work sites, they tend to be noisy and filled with commotion(Breure and Van Meel, 2003; Forlano, 2008; Lyons et al., 2008). Furthermore, a lack ofprivacy is an issue not only in these non-traditional work settings but also whenvisiting the premises of a client or colleague (Hislop and Axtell, 2009; Mark and Su,2010). Thus, there may be limitations to the work activities that can be conducted;



because confidential tasks can be overheard and/or overseen, they are less likely to beperformed (Axtell et al., 2008; Forlano, 2008). There may also be restrictions associatedwith mobile phone usage in some places, such as specific train carriages or publiclocations (Brown and O’Hara, 2003). In some cases, mobile workers may feel that theirwork-related phone calls are disruptive to others (Perry and Brodie, 2006). The excep-tion to these environments is a private car that offers the needed privacy, thus allowingmobile workers to use their mobile phones quite freely while driving (Laurier, 2004).Forlano (2008: 39) claims that non-traditional work settings are locations of ‘inconven-ience, constraint and specificity’ opposite to the anytime, anywhere philosophy andideology. Trains and cars were the main modes of transportation described in thearticles. Surprisingly, few studies analysed airplanes as places to work.

Modes of transportation

Train. Tasks conducted on trains depend on the length of the journey and the degreeof tranquillity of the carriage. Both socially independent and dependent tasks can beperformed while travelling by train. Some of the activities that are conducted are thosethat require high levels of concentration, such as reading and reviewing documentsand emails, planning and creating presentations, writing reports and notes, and check-ing calendars. Emails and voice mails can also be quickly completed on short journeys.Socially more dependent activities include phone calls to and from colleagues; super-visors, clients and relatives may also be contacted on trains. Cognitively demandingtasks, such as conference call negotiations with clients, co-workers or supervisors, inthe main office or a brainstorming session with colleagues travelling on the same trainwere all cited in the literature as tasks often performed by mobile workers whentravelling by train.

A train, however, is a very public physical place. Sustained concentration in a noisy,public space, even under the best conditions, is difficult (Lyons et al., 2008). Conse-quently, there is a need to take breaks and alternate between business and relaxation(Brown and O’Hara, 2003; Axtell et al., 2008; Lyons et al., 2008). Accordingly, certainprecautions are required to guard personal workspace as it is not easy to leave the seator the specific location even for a short period of time (Axtell et al., 2008). Furthermore,the length of the journey affects the type of tasks that can be accomplished. Forexample, during short journeys, it may not be practical to set up certain technologiessimply due to the time required to do so (Axtell et al., 2008). The research indicates thatif workers are not directly told that they are expected to work while in transit on thetrain, they may have less motivation to engage in mobile working when the localconditions are prohibitive (Axtell et al., 2008).

Car. While cars may be somewhat precarious places from which to conduct work, it isnot uncommon for mobile workers to conduct business while driving. Laurier (2004)describes how a mobile worker reads printed emails and other documents and makesphone calls while driving (multi-tasking). Many of the tasks conducted while drivingare micro-tasks. Micro-tasks are defined as short but complete action cycles, such asreading a text message on a car or smart phone’s display and responding with a ‘yes’or ‘no’. Concentration is thus divided between working and driving, according to thedemands of the traffic.

Laurier and Philo (2003) and Laurier (2004) focused on the risks to mobile workerswho work while driving due to their tight schedules and the challenges they encounterwith respect to finding their way or being involved in a traffic accident. Drivingexpands the physical space to include not only the interior of the car but also thesurrounding traffic. Laurier (2004) noted that the inability of drivers to speak to oneanother can lead to intense misunderstandings in traffic behaviour. Therefore, the focusof the driver should be on driving as the speed of the car in relation to other vehiclesahead and in parallel lanes requires constant monitoring and adjusting. Traffic condi-tions and situations vary considerably while on the road (Laurier and Philo, 2003;Hislop and Axtell, 2009). Additionally, driving in the dark or in unfamiliar areas or



cultures can present an entirely different set of factors that demand extra attention fromthe driver (Vartiainen and Hyrkkänen, 2010).

Secondary placesSecondary places are locations to meet clients, partners or suppliers. These places mayinclude the premises of another party or of the mobile worker’s company that is outsidethe main office. Time spent at secondary places is often devoted to meetings or topreparing for upcoming meetings, and as such, there may be a continuous change intopics or activities. There may also be demanding negotiations or tasks that requireextensive responsibility. In other words, the working days at secondary places are oftenlong and fragmented (Vartiainen and Hyrkkänen, 2010). In addition to working withlocal people, secondary places are often used for interacting with the home officeregarding progress and challenges related to the business. Informal socialising withcolleagues and partners is also a common occurrence at secondary work places, whilespare time is often used for reading documents and catching up on emails.

Mobile workers seek out resources when they arrive at a new site. Challengesassociated with new sites include finding appropriate places from which to performrelevant tasks (Bosch-Sijtsema et al., 2010) and locating the local people who can facili-tate the successful completion of the necessary tasks (Mark and Su, 2010). A lack ofconference rooms often occurs because of the habit of not cancelling unnecessarybookings; the result is fully booked but often unused meeting rooms. As a result,visiting workers may be asked to vacate the room in the middle of a meeting (Mark andSu, 2010). Mobile workers realise that they will encounter unpredictable situations, butthey cannot know exactly what those situations might be or what is required of them toresolve such conflicts (Perry et al., 2001), and therefore, they have difficulty in devel-oping helpful routines (Mark and Su, 2010). Problems occur especially in those placesthat are not intended to serve as a main workplace and are used asynchronously byvarious users (Laurier and Philo, 2003; Mark and Su, 2010; Vartiainen and Hyrkkänen,2010). Mobile workers cannot rely on the organisation to provide a local office or evena stable set of artefacts (Mark and Su, 2010).

The needs of clients as well as the number and the sequence of client visits during theday may be difficult to predict (Laurier and Philo, 2003; Vartiainen and Hyrkkänen,2010), and when going to meet with a client or a partner, the time to conduct anythingother than client or partner face-to-face interactions is often limited and unpredictable(Axtell and Hislop, 2008; Hislop and Axtell, 2009; Vartiainen and Hyrkkänen, 2010).Perry et al. (2001) note that mobile employees feel pressured to use any excess timebetween meetings to perform tasks that require their attention or tasks that would pileup while they are away from the main office despite the limited resources available inthe environment and the ongoing distractions in the form of discussions concerningwork that is not relevant to the mobile worker (Mark and Su, 2010). The multitude ofdifferent individuals encountered, the cultural differences and the sometimes dissatis-fied or non-communicative clients can result in pressure and difficulties to completethe work assignment (Vartiainen and Hyrkkänen, 2010).

Third placesThird places are hotels, cafés, pubs, restaurants, conference venues and fairs as well aspublic areas, such as parks, airport lounges, railway stations and motorway servicestations (Vartiainen, 2006; 2007). In Vartiainen and Hyrkkänen’s (2010) study, thirdplaces represent a forum for informal meetings with colleagues or an environment forconducting necessary business activities using laptops. Often, this is conducted afterthe official office hours in hotel rooms or restaurants. Forlano (2008) notes that theseplaces, especially cafés, are used as innovative spaces to enhance one’s productivity, tocollaborate and to participate in specific work communities and networks. Locallymobile workers frequently use service stations and other agreed-upon rendezvouspoints for both informal and formal meetings.



Cafés. Today, cafés are becoming increasingly more important and more common asplaces for both work and social activities. Nowadays, mobile workers can work fromtheir laptops, tablets and smart phones, conduct business calls and socialise from acafé. Forlano (2008) found that the traditional division of work and leisure, public andprivate, blur when working in cafés. She also notes that in popular cafés, it is oftendifficult to find an available work space or table and doing so may require queuing andtable hopping. Specific cafés may be important to different people for varied reasons.For example, the trustworthiness of the other patrons is important because each inter-action entails a negotiation for location and security (Forlano, 2008). Accordingly,Brown and O’Hara (2003) as well as Forlano (2008) found that the lack of privacy andconfidentiality in cafés limits the work activities that can be conducted.

Airports. Airports are used for reading documents and emails, working from a laptop,making business calls and conducting meetings. The time spent travelling and waitingat airports is associated with delays and waiting times over which the mobile workerhas little control (Perry et al., 2001; Breure and Van Meel, 2003). Workers can onlypartially use the available time for their work activities as there is little control over theresources in the environment available to the mobile worker (Perry et al., 2001). Breureand Van Meel (2003) found in their study of Dutch business travellers that quiet workenvironments, such as airline lounges, may allow more privacy, but they are often toofar from the terminal, and access is therefore limited.

Returning to the main office and home

The main workplace is also a place for both formal and informal meetings, while thehome serves as the mobile worker’s place for conducting work that requires a highdegree of concentration. Concerns regarding the functionality of work spaces are notlimited to the non-traditional places but surprisingly extend to the employer’s officeand the worker’s home as well. The first challenge when arriving to a main workplaceis to find a suitable non-occupied place to work that meets the demands of the task athand. Finding an appropriate space that can accommodate the various work activities,such as creative tasks, can be difficult. After finding an appropriate space, often in anopen office, the work environment must be structured to be conducive for work(Brown and O’Hara, 2003; Hislop and Axtell, 2009; Bosch-Sijtsema et al., 2010). Inaddition, the homes of mobile workers are often not ideal places to work as they oftendo not have an appropriate workspace, and as a consequence, work is conducted at thekitchen table, which generally must be cleared to make room for paperwork and oftenpresents ergonomic challenges as well (Halford, 2005; Hislop and Axtell, 2009).

Main workplaceFor a mobile worker, the main workplace is only one of many locations used for work.It is a place for meeting and interacting with colleagues and team members bothformally and informally. Tasks conducted at the main workplace often require teamand managerial support, training in unfamiliar tasks or joint problem solving (Halford,2005). Furthermore, mobile workers usually have an accumulation of work thatrequires timely attention (Vartiainen and Hyrkkänen, 2010; Venezia and Allee, 2007) asa result of their visits to other places. They are not only reporting and completingadministrative tasks, but they are also negotiating, gathering knowledge, making deci-sions and planning their next trip. Consequently, they are under a significant pressureto achieve a considerable amount of work when they are in the main office, but theperceived productivity of mobile desk workers appears to be significantly lower thanthat of those employees who have a dedicated desk (Bosch-Sijtsema et al., 2010).

One of the challenges is that mobile workers have problems navigating and connect-ing with their colleagues for collaboration when they are in the building or in a largeopen-plan office (Bosch-Sijtsema et al., 2010). Venezia and Allee (2007) as well asBosch-Sijtsema and her colleagues (2010) suggest that the company office space design



often does not meet the mobile workers’ needs. For example, the use of mobile desksin an open-plan office supports only collaborative communicative tasks, not the indi-vidual tasks of all knowledge workers. Consequently, it is more difficult for mobileworkers than it is for dedicated desk workers to find and book meeting rooms or otherplaces needed for conducting their work. The limited number of quiet rooms for phonecalls and other tasks that require privacy results in mobile workers walking around theoffice in an attempt to find a private place so as not to disturb others (Venezia and Allee,2007; Bosch-Sijtsema et al., 2010). Because of the plans to meet with people while at theoffice, the lack of conference rooms can lead to a competition for them and to a habitof booking rooms as a precaution, which makes the situation even worse (Mark and Su,2010).

An open environment is beneficial as mobile desk workers mainly come to the officeto meet with colleagues, interact and collaborate. On the other hand, an open environ-ment can be noisy and cause disturbances for those who need to concentrate or need aprivate place for other reasons. The number of meetings, phone calls and informalinteractions means that the periods of undisturbed time are limited (Hislop and Axtell,2009; Bosch-Sijtsema et al., 2010; Vartiainen and Hyrkkänen, 2010). Furthermore, ifemployees are sitting at temporarily reserved desks (i.e. hot desks), they are oftendragged into discussions and meetings, whereas if they were not quite so accessible,this would be less likely to occur. Such situations are difficult to balance because someof these impromptu meetings may be important (Brown and O’Hara, 2003).

Physical layouts include ergonomic concerns and do not always provide the basicthings that users expect or need, such as an adjustable chair (Brown and O’Hara, 2003).Mobile workers have to continuously carry their work tools, such as laptops, mobilephones, and necessary materials and documents, with them as they must be preparedto establish their ‘mobile office’ anywhere. Mobile workers frequently complain thatthey often must take their work tools home every day as they have no designated desksor individual offices, and there is a limited amount of storage space available foremployees. Such storage problems also make it difficult to consult documents whileperforming basic tasks even in the office (Brown and O’Hara, 2003; Hislop and Axtell,2009; Bosch-Sijtsema et al., 2010).

Although the social environment is often rather hectic as there are many peoplearound, there is the risk of the lack of identification to a certain group. Frequentabsences of the group members because of travelling decrease informal interactionseven when a mobile worker is in the main office (Bosch-Sijtsema et al., 2010). Difficul-ties in group relationships also occur, such as issues in social relationships and conflictsbetween and among teams and their members. Therefore, there is the need to manageand build work-related, frequently changing networks. It can be concluded that com-panies are not providing sufficient support for their mobile workers (Vartiainen andHyrkkänen, 2010).

HomeThe home as a workplace is intended for tasks that require concentration. Mobileworkers can have uninterrupted time at home to read, plan, schedule, coordinate,prepare, research and be creative. The home work environment provides the mobileworker an escape from the pressures and interruptions of an office environment.Though they feel that they are most productive at home, some of the same hindrancesthat affect home-based teleworkers also exist for mobile workers (e.g. Halford, 2005;Venezia and Allee, 2007; Hislop and Axtell, 2009). For example, Halford (2005) reportschallenges in working practices, such as difficulties ending the work day because thespace does not restrict working.

Homes as social spaces have inherent hindrances as well. Hislop and Axtell (2009)conclude that the home is not a conducive environment for collaborative work. Accord-ing to Halford (2005), the main challenges regarding the organisational relationship arethe pressures to prove one’s availability to others and the fact that the home workingenvironment undermines office sociability. Problems linked to the need for team andmanagerial support and for training as well as the more nebulous reliance on visual



methods of problem solving are also described by mobile workers who use their homeas a work space. On the other hand, managers are more concerned with issues of trustand time with respect to mobile workers who work from home. The unpredictability ofsome of the work causes a particular concern. For example, how would a managerknow whether a worker had really encountered a problem that took longer to resolvethan expected or whether the worker was slacking off? Managers also expressed aprotective concern for their staff as they worry that the worker may be struggling on awork-related issue or struggling with working from home. They were concerned thatwhen working from home, workers may not always receive important information in atimely manner. Again, based on the reviewed literature, it is evident that mobileworkers must develop new working practices when working from home.

The available electronic working environment, infrastructures, devices and mediaused to create virtual spaces

Virtual space with its tools and infrastructures make it possible to be available at alltimes in different locations in use. The reality, however, appears to be different in thereviewed articles. Generally, the most described problems are related to the accessibil-ity of networks and to the reliability and functionality of the used technologies (e.g.Brown and O’Hara, 2003; Axtell et al., 2008). When wireless networks are available,their costs (e.g. in trains) may prohibit use (Axtell et al., 2008). Furthermore, publicspace norms of conduct limit what work can be conducted and what technology can beused (Axtell et al., 2008). A ‘positive’ side to connectivity problems is that concentratedwork is not disturbed by external or self-initiated interruptions as the decision to usenetwork-dependent technologies has been removed from the employee (Axtell et al.,2008). On the other hand, the availability resulting from the use of virtual tools cancause disruptions and fragmented work as well as interruptions to family life, forexample, due to too many calls and virtual meetings from home at night and onweekends; this is a reality especially for those engaged in global mobile work (Green,2002; Vartiainen and Hyrkkänen, 2010).

While on the move and while working in different modes of transportation or atairports, certain facilities such as electrical power and Internet connectivity may not beavailable, which can lead to dead computer batteries and the inefficient use of worktime (Brown and O’Hara, 2003; Axtell et al., 2008). Technology is considered timeconsuming as five minutes spent installing new software on a laptop is consideredwasted time (Breure and Van Meel, 2003). Furthermore, devices with small displays arenot always easy to use as certain visibility problems have been identified (Vartiainenand Hyrkkänen, 2010).

Mark and Su (2010) and Perry et al. (2001) report that there are usually no visiblemarkers to indicate the existence of local infrastructure or whether a resource (e.g.wireless connection) is working or is of good quality when working at secondary places(e.g. at a client’s site). Trying to connect to the employee’s network from a customer sitecan be especially frustrating as each site has its own policies and rules regulatingvisitors’ use of internal networks. Sometimes, visitors fail to connect with their owncompany’s infrastructure and consequently cannot make it to meetings or contactcolleagues with critical information (Perry et al., 2001). Non-routine users must learnthe local infrastructure, the appropriate standards and the specifics regarding thelocations of working resources with respect to multiple places. Mobile workers are notin any one place long enough to be able to learn everything that is needed. For example,it can be particularly complicated to restore the wireless infrastructure because thevisiting employee does not know whether the fault is with the local environment, withthe latest automated update from the company’s IT or with specific configuration of hisor her own laptop (Mark and Su, 2010). Mobile workers carry with them the equipmentto create a temporary workspace and to prepare for the unexpected. Therefore, manyessential tools are needed, such as mobile phones that match the local standards,portable printers, backup devices, separate SIM cards for specific countries and paper



artefacts (Mark and Su, 2010). Still, sometimes, the tools needed are not available(Hislop and Axtell, 2009; Vartiainen and Hyrkkänen, 2010). Furthermore, duties andsocial relationships at secondary places are often demanding, thus making connectionsto a home office for support indispensable (Vartiainen and Hyrkkänen, 2010). Failing tomake meetings and to connect with colleagues with significant information can becritical, and the reason for the failure may not be visible to remote colleagues (Markand Su, 2010).

Technology may also have an impact on the work relationships if there are notsufficient opportunities for face-to-face meetings. Similarly, with the home-basedteleworkers, multi-locational workers may experience long periods of time betweenmeeting their work colleagues, even though they have a daily electronic contact withthem (Brown and O’Hara, 2003). The lack of strong relationships to begin with couldfurther impede the use of ICT as an alternative way of relationship building becausepeople may be reluctant to contact those whom they do not know well, which is a factorthat may alienate colleagues (Axtell and Hislop, 2008). Loneliness, a lack of support andrisks of becoming ‘invisible’ or marginalised in the parent organisation are social risksassociated with being a mobile multi-locational worker (Hislop and Axtell, 2009).Mobile workers may also face problems gaining access to the company’s human infra-structure for support. A property of the human infrastructure is that it must be learnedas a part of membership in the community. In practice, it is a challenge to become amember of a community of practice when mobile workers are not physically presentfor extended periods at any one location (Mark and Su, 2010).

Mark and Su (2010) note that the management at the mobile worker’s company maywrongly assume that a laptop is a complete office because they fail to consider the roleof technical infrastructure, such as monitored wired connections and the availability oflocal printers. Generally, the company’s IT backup schedule is set with respect to thehome office time zone, which can be extremely inconvenient for mobile workers.According to Perry and his colleagues (2001), technical problems at the main workplaceare more efficiently addressed than are technical issues that arise in other mobileworking environments. Even while working at their main workplace, mobile workersdo not always know when they have access to the technologies and documents neces-sary for them to conduct their work. The results clearly indicates that companies are notproviding sufficient technological support for mobile workers (Venezia and Allee,2007) and that there are some ICT policy and compatibility issues that hinder themobile worker (Vartiainen and Hyrkkänen, 2010).

Discussion and conclusionsOverall, the general purpose of moving from one place to another is to meet otherpeople face to face (Perry et al., 2001; Breure and Van Meel, 2003; Brown and O’Hara,2003; Mark and Su, 2010). Mobile work requires the mobile worker to plan one’sactivities and to arrange and combine those tasks that are to be completed in each place,for example, arranging meetings to be held in the office while simultaneously beingavailable at all times. The heterogeneity of the tasks being performed is great, althoughit is often hindered by local conditions. Our findings suggest that while mobility andchanging contexts are important factors, common hindrances can be found in alllocations and spaces (Figure 2), although some hindrances are unique to certain typesof places (Table 1).

Common hindrances

Mobile and multi-locational workers can be characterised as ‘lonely riders’ as they arestrangers wherever they are. The continuous change in physical locations results in anongoing search for a place to conduct the day’s business. Time after time, mobileworkers must address problems caused by limited working spaces. The main chal-lenge, however, of virtual spaces seems to be limited connections and a lack of Internet



access despite the technological improvements in recent years.1 From the social spaceperspective, mobile multi-locational workers remain outsiders when visiting theirclients or partners, and even when at their main workplace, they are not consideredpart of the workplace community. Mobile workers are alone while travelling andvisiting their contacts, thus resulting in a lack of support, a challenge in terms ofsynchronising with colleagues (perhaps due to different time zones) and sometimes afeeling of being marginalised.

The summary of the most common hindrances in Figure 2 shows that problemsconcerning incompatible and limited working space, ICT connections, and access arefound in all identified work places, while interruptions are related to most of theidentified work places, except home, and that being an outsider with respect to thework community is common to all places except third places. Limited privacy andergonomics concerns are mostly related to the moving, secondary and third places.Technological problems and the lack of ICT support are associated especially with themain workplace and secondary places.

Place-specific hindrances

In addition to common hindrances, there are space- and place-specific hindrances.Table 1 shows that specific, mainly physical hindrances associated with moving placesemerge both from the internal and external demands. In addition, the behaviouralnorms limit the possibilities to work. In secondary places, it is difficult to find peopleand suitable places to work. In addition, meeting people is demanding due to culturalfactors. In third places, a mobile worker has little control over the physical resources. Inaddition, the people in the area, for the most part, are strangers. In the main workplace,a mobile worker has difficulties finding a place for his or her belongings. Furthermore,he or she may have difficulties adapting to the local community. At home, a mobileworker is confronted with spatial and social availability challenges. However, otherhome-related roles were not cited in the reviewed articles.

Performance outcomes

Incompa�ble physical space

Unusable and una�ainable virtual space

Disrup�ve and interrup�ve social space

Home

Main work-place Third

places Secon-

dary places

Mo-ving

places

Limited connections and access, missing ICT support

Limited working space

Interruptions by other people

Ergonomics concerns

Externality and missing social support

Limited privacy

Figure 2: The most common hindrances of mobile multi-locational workers in physical (P),virtual (V) and social (S) spaces



Working in places other than home or a private car is characterised by restlessnessand interruptions because of other peoples’ behaviour. While public places are busyand crowded settings, they are regularly used for working. There seems to be a distinctdifference between behaviour in a private space (private car) and behaviour in a publicspace (cafe, airport, train, airplane). Private cars may afford more privacy, but it isimpossible to perform tasks that require space or the use of both hands even thoughemployees often find themselves multi- and micro-tasking. As the access to space iseven more limited in public transportation, adjustments are required to provide suit-able space for any work purpose. Many hindrances can be found in all of the afore-mentioned places. However, most of the identified hindrances were directly associatedwith moving and secondary places, thereby characterising them as complex workenvironments.

Theoretical implications

This analysis contributes theoretically to our understanding of the types of new ways ofworking and the workload factors that are specific to mobile multi-locational work. Asa new way of working (Kelliher and Richardson, 2011), the mobile multi-locationalwork construct is a special form of telework that differs from home-based telework inmany respects because of the changing contextual factors. The nature and content of thetasks do not seem to vary much as most of the articles concerned autonomous knowl-edge work, which could indicate that mobile workers draft their job according to thecontext and the available resources. The mobile multi-locational telework is not mono-

Table 1: The place-specific hindrances in physical, virtual and social spaces

Place-specific hindrances Space Typical place

The length of the journey restricts work activities(short journeys)

P Moving places

Carrying heavy bags PLimitations due to public space norms STraffic culture and conditions vary PMisunderstandings in traffic SAttention and concentration needed for driving PChallenges finding a way to conduct work PContinuous changes in timetables and routes PInsecurity SDifficulties locating people P Secondary placesUnpredictability of the working conditions PMany demanding social situations and a need to

respond within a time limitS

Diverse cultures and individuals SLittle control over resources in the environment

result in non-productive timeP Third places

Inconvenient spaces PNeed to find reliable people and trust them SLimited storage P Main workplaceUnpredictable situations SDifferent mind sets of local and mobile workers SSpace does not limit the length of the working day

resulting in negative work–home interferenceP Home

Trust/availability concerns SManagers’ concerns about their own attentiveness S

P, physical; S, social.



lithic, but rather it is dynamic depending at least on the following two complexityfactors (Vartiainen, 2006: 30–32): (1) the location, for example, the number of locationsvisited, the type of locations (home, main workplace, etc.) and the distance betweenwork places, and (2) the degree of mobility, for example, the frequency of changingplaces, the area, the order of the work places and their changes, and the time spent ineach place. In each location, employees are under the influence of hindrances emergingfrom the physical, virtual and social spaces. This multiplicity is accompanied by thechallenge in measuring the pervasiveness of new ways of working on a societal level.

Despite the fact that multi-locational work types are not congruent in terms of theircomplexity, we can identify certain workload factors as common hindrances (Figure 2).However, we also know that the hindrances in mobile and multi-locational work arenot the whole picture. The majority of the research concerning multi-locational andmobile work reveals that workers experience these new ways of working as liberatingand inspiring and as stressful and draining at the same time (e.g. Hill et al., 1998; Borgand Kristensen, 1999; Felstead et al., 2005; Halford, 2005; Hislop and Axtell, 2009). Forexample, Hill et al. (2003) found that a ‘virtual office’, for the most part, positivelyinfluences specific aspects of work, such as job retention, workload success, optimisticcareer orientation and work motivation, while somewhat negatively influences thebalance between work and personal life. Work–life boundary literature has been inter-ested in how ICTs, while allowing employees to work ‘anytime anywhere’, enableworking in non-work hours at home (e.g. Towers et al., 2006; Fenner and Renn, 2010).Gold and Mustafa (2013) observed that mobile freelancers did not necessarily workexcessively long hours at home, but they do work irregularly and externally triggeredby their clients. Sayah (2013) argues that individuals are actively managing theirwork–life boundary by using ICTs. Their boundaries can be permeable in both direc-tions and vary in temporal, spatial and psychological dimensions. This has an effect onsocial space both at work and home. We are also aware of the research suggesting thatthe experience of job demands can be influenced by the employee’s individual, sub-jective appraisal (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). Although such subjective differencesaffect the experiences, we concentrated on hindrance demands that are specific formulti-locational work and that apply to all employees.

Practical implications

Based on our analysis, some tentative and general practical implications can be derivedfor improving human resources and re-designing multi-locational work even thoughmobile workers are generally able to draft their jobs. We should not regard mobilework as a constrained form of static work but rather as a type of work that has differentvalues for different people and companies, different opportunities for actions, andmethods for performing work. Accordingly, the human resource professionals, man-agement and mobile workers themselves could perform the following:

1. Build a shared understanding among management and employees of mobile multi-locational work-specific hindrances to develop practical improvements and solutionsto work practices and policies that could positively impact employee engagementand vigour. The following issues need new practices:a. A continuous change in the physical work environment results a recurrent

search for a suitable place to perform the tasks at hand.b. Mobile workers must repeatedly solve problems caused by limited work

space.c. Mobile multi-locational workers remain outsiders in the workplace community

when visiting their clients or partners and when at their primary workplace,which results in a lack of support, a challenge synchronising with colleagues(e.g. different time zones) and, perhaps, feelings of being marginalised.

d. Public places are regularly used for work despite the fact that they are busy andcrowded. Thus, the ability to use the space for work purposes is restrictedbecause of concerns of privacy, security and space.



2. Be aware of assuming that mobile devices and applications are a complete virtual office.The main challenge related to the use of ICT is the limited connections and accessdespite the technological improvements in recent years.

3. Analyse the needs and provide applicable ICT support. Practical and occasionedrequirements of the mobile workers are likely to be different from those of collo-cated employees even when working in the main workplace.

These practical solutions are fairly easy to carry out, and consequently, it is fairly easyto make the lives of multi-locational workers less complicated and more productive.

Limitations

Although this literature analysis offers some theoretical and practical insights, it is notwithout limitations. First, we found only a limited number of empirical studies onmobile multi-locational work. In addition, because all of the studies used in the reviewwere cross-sectional, we were unable to make any strong statements regarding theeffects of job design, human resource development interventions or better competencesof employees on multi-locational work performance. However, our findings providepreliminary support for the notion that mobile and multi-locational work has specifichindrances that can be experienced as workload factors.

The main limitation concerns the conceptual basis of our analysis as the existingliterature is still hampered by definitional differences. Understanding fully thenature of mobile multi-locational work would require clear concepts and theoperationalisation of those concepts for measuring purposes. For example, the analysisof the physical space as a layer of a work environment requires clear definitions of‘space’, ‘place’, ‘location’ and ‘workplace’. We solved this by defining ‘space’ as apotential place to work by using the concept ‘ba’. As Harrison and Dourish (1996: 69)explained, the difference between ‘space’ and ‘place’ is that ‘everyday actions take placein a place; space is the opportunity; place is the understood reality’. Therefore, weattempted to overcome the possible confusion regarding the concepts by including the‘ba’ into the demand factors of the JR-D model (Figure 1) and used it for mobilemulti-locational work as the guiding framework for our analysis. This allowed us tofocus systematically on the hindrances as specific negative aspects of work demandsemerging from virtual, social and physical spaces.

One limitation in our study is related to the degree of description of the subjects andtheir jobs and tasks as presented in the analysed articles. The data in the articles werecollected in multiple manners from mobile employees who were mainly businesstravellers, such as sales persons, and knowledge professionals, such as consultants andIT professionals. The subjects also included mobile service and repairing engineers andmaintenance workers. However, it would have been valuable to know more about theirjob contents and especially the tasks performed in the different locations.

Suggestions for future research

As this literature is still rather new, there are many opportunities for future research.There is clearly a need to clarify under what circumstances we would expect hin-drances to be enhanced and experienced as strains in the mobile, multi-locational workcontext. Accordingly, when considering the prevalence of stress in today’s workplace asshown in, for example, European Working Condition Survey (Eurofound, 2012), futureresearch must identify not only related tasks or organisations but also specific stressorsthat arise from working in multiple work environments. Understanding how suchstressors arise may help employers to develop better and more supportive workenvironments, which ultimately results in increased efficiency and productivity(Karasek and Theorell, 1990; Bosch-Sijtsema et al., 2010).

We can only speculate based on our analysis the types of human resources andregulative processes and outcomes required by mobile, multi-locational work. If weaccept that the category of job demands in the JD-R model (Demerouti et al., 2001;



Bakker and Demerouti, 2007) can be divided into challenge-related and hindrance-related stressors (Cavanaugh et al., 2000; Podsakoff et al., 2007), and that hindrances arenegatively related to engagement (Crawford et al., 2010; Van den Broeck et al., 2010), wecan hypothesise that the identified disturbances in mobile work would lead to reducedwork engagement. This possible relationship would be worth studying in the future. Itwould be especially interesting to study demand factors and their combinations emerg-ing from different spaces. There are many other open questions to be studied, such asthe content of the human resources (e.g. competences in mobile multi-locational work),as well as other outcomes, such as creativity, innovativeness, productivity and workflow.

There is a need for clear and explicit definitions as well as for the development ofnew models and theories to explain under what circumstances we would expectmulti-locational work to be hindered by the contextual constraints of changing andembedded environments as well as what type of job resources are needed to supportworker performance.

Note

1. One must remember that several reviewed articles have been published almost 10 years ago,and consequently, the data have been collected even earlier. Likely, the situation has beenimproved somewhat in recent years.

References

Andriessen, J.H.E. and M. Vartiainen (eds) (2006), Mobile Virtual Work. A New Paradigm? (Hei-delberg: Springer).

Axtell, C. and D. Hislop (2008), ‘The Lonely Life of the Mobile Engineer?’, in D. Hislop (ed.),Mobility and Technology in the Workplace (London and New York: Routledge), pp. 105–119.

Axtell, C., D. Hislop and S. Whittaker (2008), ‘Mobile Technologies in Mobile Spaces: Findingsfrom the Context of Train Travel’, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 66, 12,902–915.

Bakker, A.B. and E. Demerouti (2007), ‘The Job Demands-Resources Model: State of the Art’,Journal of Managerial Psychology 22, 3, 309–328.

Becker, F. and W. Sims (2000), Managing Uncertainty. Integrated Portfolio Strategies for DynamicOrganisations. International Workplace Studies Program, Ithaca (New York: Cornell University).

Borg, V. and T.S. Kristensen (1999), ‘Psychosocial Work Environment and Mental Health amongTravelling Salespeople’, Work & Stress 13, 2, 132–143.

Bosch-Sijtsema, P., V. Ruohomäki and M. Vartiainen (2010), ‘Multi-Locational KnowledgeWorkers in the Office: Navigation, Disturbances and Effectiveness’, New Technology, Work andEmployment 25, 3, 183–195.

Breure, A. and J. Van Meel (2003), ‘Airport Offices: Facilitating Nomadic Workers’, Facilities 21,7/8, 175–179.

Brown, B. and K. O’Hara (2003), ‘Place as a Practical Concern of Mobile Workers’, Environmentand Planning A 35, 9, 1565–1587.

Carayon, P. and F. Zijlstra (1999), ‘Relationship between Job Control, Work Pressure and Strain:Studies in the USA and in the Netherlands’, Work & Stress 13, 1, 32–48.

Cavanaugh, M.A., W.R. Boswell, M.V. Roehling and J.W. Boudreau (2000), ‘An Empirical Exami-nation of Self-Reported Work Stress among U.S. Managers’, Journal of Applied Psychology 85, 1,65–74.

Crawford, E.R., J.A. LePine and B.L. Rich (2010), ‘Linking Job Demands and Recourses toEmployee Engagement and Burnout: A Theoretical Extension and Meta-Analytic Test’, Journalof Applied Psychology 95, 5, 834–848.

Demerouti, E., A.E. Bakker, F. Nachreiner and W.B. Schaufeli (2001), ‘The Job Demands-ResourcesModel of Burnout’, Journal of Applied Psychology 86, 3, 499–512.

Eurofound (2012), Fifth European Working Conditions Survey (Luxembourg: Publications Office ofthe European Union).

Felstead, A., N. Jewson and S. Walters (2005), Changing Places of Work (New York: PalgraveMacmillan).



Fenner, G.H. and R.W. Renn (2010), ‘Technology Assisted Supplemental Work and Work-to-Family Conflict: The Role of Instrumentality Beliefs, Organizational Expectations and TimeManagement’, Human Relations 63, 1, 63–82.

Forlano, L. (2008), ‘Working on the Move. The Social and Digital Ecologies of Mobile Workplaces’,in D. Hislop (ed.), Mobility and Technology in the Workplace (London and New York: Routledge),pp. 28–42.

Gareis, K., S. Lilischkis and A. Mentrup (2006), ‘Mapping the Mobile Eworkforce in Europe’, inJ.H.E. Andriessen and M. Vartiainen (eds), Mobile Virtual Work. A New Paradigm? (Heidelberg:Springer), pp. 45–69.

Gold, M. and M. Mustafa (2013), ‘ “Work Always Wins”: Client Colonisation, Time Managementand the Anxieties of Connected Freelancers’, New Technology, Work and Employment 28, 3,197–211.

Green, N. (2002), ‘On the Move: Technology, Mobility, and the Mediation of Social Time andSpace’, The Information Society 18, 4, 281–292.

Hakanen, J.J. and G. Roodt (2010), ‘Using the Job Demands-Resources Model to Predict Engage-ment: Analyzing the Conceptual Model’, in A.B. Bakker and M. Leiter (eds), Work Engagement:A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research (New York, NY: Psychology Press), pp. 85–101.

Halford, S. (2005), ‘Hybrid Workspace: Recapitalizations of Work, Organization and Manage-ment’, New Technology, Work and Employment 20, 1, 19–33.

Harrison, A., P. Wheeler and D. Whitehead (2004), The Distributed Workplace (London and NewYork: Spon Press).

Harrison, S. and P. Dourish (1996), ‘Re-Place-Ing Space: The Roles of Place and Space in Collabo-rative Systems’, CSCW ’96 Proceedings of the 1996 ACM conference, ACM Press, New York, NY,pp. 67–76.

Hill, E.J., M. Ferris and V. Märtinson (2003), ‘Does It Matter Where You Work? A Comparison ofHow Three Work Venues (Traditional Office, Virtual Office, and Home Office) InfluenceAspects of Work and Personal/Family Life’, Journal of Vocational Behavior 63, 2, 220–241.

Hill, E.J., B.C. Miller, S.P. Weiner and J. Colihan (1998), ‘Influences of the Virtual Office on Aspectsof Work and Work/Life Balance’, Personnel Psychology 51, 3, 667–683.

Hislop, D. (ed.) (2008), Mobility and Technology in the Work Place (London: Routledge).Hislop, D. and C. Axtell (2009), ‘To Infinity and beyond?: Workspace and Multi-Location Worker’,

New Technology, Work and Employment 24, 1, 60–75.Hyrkkänen, U. and M. Vartiainen (2005), Mobiili Työ Ja Hyvinvointi. [Mobile Work and Well-Being.]

(Työministeriön Julkaisu, 293) (Helsinki: Työministeriö).Hyrkkänen, U. and M. Vartiainen (2007), ‘Hyvinvoinnin Haasteet Mobiilissa Työssä. [Well-Being

Challenges in Mobile Work.]’, Työ Ja Ihminen 21, 160–172.Jett, Q.R. and J.M. George (2003), ‘Work Interrupted: A Closer Look at the Role of Interruptions

in Organizational Life’, Academy of Management Review 28, 3, 494–507.Karasek, R.A. (1979), ‘Job Demands, Job Decision Latitude and Mental Strain: Implications for Job

Redesign’, Administrative Science Quarterly 24, 2, 285–308.Karasek, R.A. and T. Theorell (1990), Healthy Work: Stress, Productivity, and the Reconstruction of

Working Life (New York: Basic Books).Kelliher, C. and J. Richardson (eds) (2011), New Ways of Organizing Work. Developments, Perspec-

tives, and Experiences (New York: Routledge).Laurier, E. (2004), ‘Doing Office Work on the Motorway’, Theory, Culture & Society 21, 4–5,

261–277.Laurier, E. and C. Philo (2003), ‘The Region in the Boot: Mobilizing Lone Subjects and Multiple

Objects’, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 21, 1, 85–106.Lazarus, R.S. and S. Folkman (1984), Stress, Appraisal, and Coping (New York: Springer).Lipnack, J. and J. Stamps (2000), Virtual Teams. People Working across Boundaries with Technology

(New York: Wiley & Sons).Lyons, G., D. Holley and J. Jain (2008), ‘The Business of Train Travel’, in D. Hislop (ed.), Mobility

and Technology in the Workplace (London and New York: Routledge), pp. 74–86.Mandler, G. (1990), ‘Interruption (Discrepancy) Theory: Review and Extensions’, in S. Fisher and

C.L. Cooper (eds), On the Move: The Psychology of Change and Transition (New York: Wiley), pp.13–32.

Mark, G., V.M. Gonzales and G. Harris (2005), ‘No Task Left Behind? Examining the Nature ofFragmented Work’, Proceedings of ACM CHI 2005, ACM press, Portland, OR, pp. 321–330.

Mark, G. and N.M. Su (2010), ‘Making Infrastructure Visible for Nomadic Work’, Pervasive andMobile Computing 6, 3, 312–323.

Maslach, C., S. Jackson and M.P. Leiter (1996), MBI: Maslach Burnout Inventory Manual (Palo Alto,CA: Consulting Psychologists Press).



Maslach, C. and M.P. Leiter (1997), The Truth about Burnout: How Organizations Cause Stress andWhat to Do about It (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass).

Maslach, C., W.B. Schaufeli and M.P. Leiter (2001), ‘Job Burnout’, Annual Review of Psychology 52,1, 397–422.

Nenonen, S. (2005), ‘The Nature of Workplace for Knowledge Creation’, Turku Polytechnic,Research Reports 19, Turku.

Nonaka, I., R. Toyama and N. Konno (2000), ‘SECI, Ba and Leadership: A Unified Model ofDynamic Knowledge Creation’, Long Range Planning 33, 1, 5–34.

Perlow, L.A. (1999), ‘The Time Famine: Toward a Sociology of Work Time’, Administrative ScienceQuarterly 43, 1, 328–357.

Perry, M. and J. Brodie (2006), ‘Virtually Connected, Practically Mobile’, in J.H.E. Andriessen andM. Vartiainen (eds), Mobile Virtual Work. A New Paradigm? (Berlin & Heidelberg: Springer), pp.95–126.

Perry, M., K. O’Hara, A. Sellen, B. Brown and R. Harper (2001), ‘Dealing with Mobility: Under-standing Access Anytime, Anywhere’, ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 8, 4,323–347.

Podsakoff, N.P., J.A. LePine and M.A. LePine (2007), ‘Differential Challenge Stressor-HindranceStressor Relationship with Job Attitudes, Turnover Intentions, Turnover, and WithdrawalBehaviour: A Meta-Analysis’, Journal of Applied Psychology 92, 2, 438–454.

Richter, P. and W. Hacker (1998), Belastung und beanspruchung (Heidelberg: Asanger).Sayah, S. (2013), ‘Managing Work-Life Boundaries with Information and Communication Tech-

nologies: The Case of Independent Contractors’, New Technology, Work and Employment 28, 3,179–196.

Schaufeli, W., M. Salanova, V. Gonzáles-Romá and A. Bakker (2002), ‘The Measurement ofEngagement and Burnout: A Two Sample Confirmatory Factor Analytic Approach’, Journal ofHappiness Studies 3, 3, 71–92.

Towers, I., L. Duxbury and C. Higgins (2006), ‘Time Thieves and Space Invaders: Technology,Work, and Organization’, Journal of Organizational Change Management 19, 5, 593–618.

Uhmavaara, H., J. Niemelä, H. Melin, T. Mamia, A. Malo, J. Koivumäki and R. Blom (2005),Joustaako työ? Joustavien työjärjestelyjen mahdollisuudet ja todellisuus. [Is Work Flexible? ThePotentialities and the Realities of Flexible Work Arrangements.] (Helsinki: Työministeriö).

Van den Broeck, A., N. de Cuyper, H. de Witte and M. Vansteenkiste (2010), ‘Not All Job DemandsAre Equal: Differentiating Job Hindrances and Job Challenges in the Job Demands-ResourcesModel’, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 19, 6, 735–759.

Vartiainen, M. (2006), ‘Mobile Virtual Work – Concepts, Outcome and Challenges’, in J.H.E.Andriessen and M. Vartiainen (eds), Mobile Virtual Work. A New Paradigm? (Berlin & Heidel-berg: Springer), pp. 13–44.

Vartiainen, M. (2007), ‘Distributed and Mobile Workplaces’, in M. Vartiainen, M. Hakonen, S.Koivisto, P. Mannonen, M.P. Nieminen, V. Ruohomäki and A. Vartola (eds), Distributed andMobile Work (Tampere: Tammer-Paino Oy), pp. 13–85.

Vartiainen, M. (2014), ‘Hindrances and Enablers of Fluent Actions in Knowledge Work’, in P.Sachse and E. Ulich (eds), Psychologie Menschlichen Handelns: Wissen Und Denken – Wollen UndTun (Langerich: Pabst Science Publishers), pp. 95–111.

Vartiainen, M. and U. Hyrkkänen (2010), ‘Changing Requirements and Mental Workload Factorsin Mobile Multi-Locational Work’, New Technology, Work and Employment 25, 2, 117–135.

Venezia, C. and V. Allee (2007), ‘Supporting Mobile Worker Networks: Components of EffectiveWorkplaces’, Journal of Corporate Real Estate 9, 3, 168–182.

Watson-Manheim, M.B., K.M. Chudoba and K. Crowston (2002), ‘Discontinuities and Continu-ities: A New Way to Understand Virtual Work’, Information, Technology and People 15, 3, 191–209.

Ziljstra, F.R.H., A.R. Roe, A.B. Leonova and I. Krediet (1999), ‘Temporal Factors in Mental Work:Effects of Interrupted Activities’, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 72, 2,163–185.

Zohar, D. (1999), ‘When Things Go Wrong: The Effect of Daily Work Hassles on Effort, Exertionand Negative Mood’, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 72, 3, 265–283.



Ap

pen

dix

1T

able

:R

evie

wed

arti

cles

Art

icle

,par

tici

pant

s,m

etho

dan

dai

m/

rese

arch

ques

tion

sD

imen

sion

sof

mul

ti-l

ocat

iona

lity

inth

efo

cus

Hom

eM

ain

wor

kpla

ceM

ovin

gpl

aces

Seco

ndar

yw

orkp

lace

sTh

ird

wor

kpla

ces

Axt

ella

ndH

islo

p(2

008)

Part

icip

ants

:Eng

inee

rsof

four

com

pani

esin

the

Nor

th/

Mid

land

sar

eaof

Eng

land

.Tw

oof

the

com

pani

esha

dno

loca

lba

ses

and

two

had.

Som

eem

ploy

ees

wor

ked

from

hom

e,in

thei

rve

hicl

esan

dat

cust

omer

site

s.So

urce

sof

data

:Sem

i-st

ruct

ured

inte

rvie

ws

ofm

obile

serv

ice

and

repa

irin

gen

gine

ers

and

thei

rm

anag

ers

(n=

23)

xx

xx

x

Axt

elle

tal.

(200

8)Pa

rtic

ipan

ts:B

usin

ess

pass

enge

rsw

how

ere

wor

king

whi

lst

trav

ellin

gon

abu

syin

terc

ity

line

wit

hin

the

UK

Sour

ces

ofda

ta:S

hort

surv

eydu

ring

thre

eda

ysto

allb

usin

ess

pass

enge

rson

the

trai

n(n

=35

0)an

dfo

llow

-up

inte

rvie

ws

tovo

lunt

ary

part

icip

ants

(n=

19)

x

Bos

ch-S

ijtse

ma

etal

.(20

10)

Part

icip

ants

:AN

orth

Eur

opea

nof

fice

ofth

egl

obal

com

pany

perf

orm

ing

tech

nolo

gyso

luti

ons,

cust

omer

serv

ice

and

supp

ort

func

tion

s.B

oth

mob

ile(n

=81

)an

dd

edic

ated

wor

kers

(n=

138)

wer

est

udie

d.So

urce

sof

data

:Sec

onda

ryda

tafr

oma

post

-occ

upan

cysu

rvey

(que

stio

nnai

refo

rth

eus

ers

ofth

esp

ace)

from

the

firm

and

byfiv

ese

mi-

stru

ctur

edco

ntex

tin

terv

iew

sw

ith

the

key

cont

act

pers

ons

ofth

eof

fice,

aw

alk-

thro

ugh

obse

rvat

ion

tech

niqu

e,ph

otog

raph

san

dfl

oor

plan

s

x

Bre

ure

and

Van

Mee

l(20

03)

Part

icip

ants

:Bus

ines

smen

inth

eN

ethe

rlan

ds

who

trav

elre

gula

rly

(glo

bally

)fo

rbu

sine

sspu

rpos

es(m

ostly

man

ager

sof

inte

rnat

iona

lcor

pora

tion

s)us

ing

Schi

phol

airp

ort

inA

mst

erda

mSo

urce

sof

data

:Asu

rvey

amon

gbu

sine

ssm

en(n

=60

,the

resp

onse

rate

87%

)an

din

-dep

thin

terv

iew

for

sele

cted

10pe

ople

from

the

sam

egr

oup

x

Bro

wn

and

O’H

ara,

(200

3)Pa

rtic

ipan

ts:H

ighl

ym

obile

prof

essi

onal

sw

how

orke

din

ara

nge

ofd

iffe

rent

prof

essi

ons

acro

ssth

eU

K.A

llw

orke

rsw

ere

high

lym

obile

and

wor

ked

out

ofth

eof

fice

ona

regu

lar

basi

s(a

tle

ast

one

day

aw

eek)

.The

ytr

avel

led

freq

uent

lylo

ngd

ista

nces

tom

ulti

ple

dif

fere

ntd

esti

nati

ons

(not

des

crib

edm

ore

clos

ely)

.So

urce

sof

data

:(1)

mob

ilew

orke

rs(n

=17

)w

ere

inte

rvie

wed

befo

rean

daf

ter

abu

sine

sstr

ipan

das

ked

toke

epa

dia

rydu

ring

the

trip

;(2)

hot

des

kers

(n=

17)

wer

ein

terv

iew

ed.

xx

xx

x

Forl

ano

(200

8).

Part

icip

ants

:Ful

l-ti

me

orpa

rt-t

ime

empl

oyee

s,se

lf-e

mpl

oyed

oren

trep

rene

urs

who

used

seve

rall

ocat

ions

wit

hin

New

York

Cit

yfo

rw

orki

ngSo

urce

sof

data

:Am

ixed

met

hod

olog

yco

mbi

ning

ethn

ogra

phy,

part

icip

ant

obse

rvat

ion

and

in-d

epth

qual

itati

vein

terv

iew

s(n

=29

)ar

ound

thre

esi

tes,

mai

nly

cafe

s

x



Tab

le:

Con

tinu

ed

Art

icle

,par

tici

pant

s,m

etho

dan

dai

m/

rese

arch

ques

tion

sD

imen

sion

sof

mul

ti-l

ocat

iona

lity

inth

efo

cus

Hom

eM

ain

wor

kpla

ceM

ovin

gpl

aces

Seco

ndar

yw

orkp

lace

sTh

ird

wor

kpla

ces

Gre

en(2

002)

Part

icip

ants

:Var

iety

ofgr

oups

and

loca

les

(e.g

.con

sum

ergr

oups

,suc

has

teen

ager

s,an

dw

orke

rsw

hoar

eon

the

mov

ein

thei

rpr

ofes

sion

allif

e,in

clud

ing

mob

ilete

chno

logy

des

igne

rs,s

ales

staf

f,m

arke

ting

dep

artm

ents

and

tele

com

mun

icat

ions

regu

lato

rs)

Sour

ces

ofda

ta:T

hree

-yea

ret

hnog

raph

icre

sear

chpr

ojec

tin

volv

ing

obse

rvat

iona

lfiel

dwor

kof

publ

icsp

aces

and

inte

rvie

ws

ofd

iffe

rent

grou

ps

xx

Hal

ford

(200

5)Pa

rtic

ipan

ts:E

mpl

oyee

sof

ala

rge

UK

-bas

edco

mpa

nyin

the

Nor

thof

Eng

land

wor

king

ina

regi

onal

info

rmat

ion

tech

nolo

gyof

fice.

Sour

ces

ofda

ta:L

ongi

tud

inal

stud

yby

obse

rvat

ions

inth

eof

fice,

byqu

esti

onna

ire

(n=

48)

and

byfo

cus

grou

pan

din

-dep

thin

terv

iew

s(2

002:

n=

10,2

003:

n=

14)

xx

His

lop

and

Axt

ell(

2009

)Pa

rtic

ipan

ts:C

onsu

ltant

s,w

hose

wor

kre

quir

esth

emto

besp

atia

llym

obile

for

muc

hof

thei

rw

orki

ngti

me

ata

rang

eof

dif

fere

ntlo

cati

ons

wit

hin

the

UK

Sour

ces

ofda

ta:A

nin

terv

iew

-bas

edca

sest

udy

of18

man

agem

ent

cons

ulta

nts

(n=

18)

inth

etw

osm

allU

Km

anag

emen

tco

nsul

tanc

ies

xx

xx

Lau

rier

(200

4)Pa

rtic

ipan

ts:T

heem

ploy

eevi

site

dse

vera

lclie

nts

ever

yw

eek

usin

gth

eM

4co

rrid

or(a

stre

tch

ofm

otor

way

conn

ecti

ngL

ond

onan

dB

rist

ol).

Sour

ces

ofda

ta:A

net

hnog

raph

icca

sest

udy

ofca

ras

aw

orkp

lace

.Obs

erva

tion

sof

and

repo

rts

from

dri

vers

wer

eco

llect

eddu

ring

fort

nigh

tssp

ent

shad

owin

gth

eman

dtr

avel

ling

asan

obse

rver

–pas

seng

erin

thei

rca

rs.

x

Lau

rier

and

Philo

(200

3)Pa

rtic

ipan

ts:O

near

eam

anag

erw

ith

resp

onsi

bilit

ies

for

liais

ing

wit

hcl

ient

san

dpr

omot

ing

exis

ting

and

new

bran

ds

ofd

rink

s.Th

ere

gion

ally

mob

ileem

ploy

eevi

site

dse

vera

lclie

nts

ever

yda

yof

the

wee

kan

dm

oved

wit

hin

the

com

pany

sale

sre

gion

inth

eU

K.

Sour

ces

ofda

ta:A

net

hnog

raph

icca

sest

udy

ofon

em

obile

wor

ker’

sda

ilyw

ork

ofm

anag

ing

her

regi

on.O

neca

r-ba

sed

mob

ilesa

les

wor

ker

(of

six

alto

geth

er)

isfo

llow

ed.

xx

xx

Lyon

set

al.(

2008

)Pa

rtic

ipan

ts:R

ailp

asse

nger

sus

ing

trai

nse

rvic

ein

area

sof

Lon

don

,Bri

stol

and

Cum

bria

,fro

mN

ewca

stle

toK

ings

Cro

ss(L

ond

on)

asw

ella

sac

ross

Gre

atB

rita

inSo

urce

sof

data

:Afo

cus

grou

pre

sear

chof

six

gend

er-d

efine

dfo

cus

grou

ps,a

nati

onal

surv

eyfo

rra

ilpa

ssen

gers

(n=

2622

1),a

ndan

ethn

ogra

phic

stud

y(fi

veda

ys)

and

case

stud

ies

(n=

6)in

clud

ing

anin

-dep

thin

terv

iew

and

ad

iary

reco

rdfo

rtw

ow

orki

ngda

ys

x



Mar

kan

dSu

(201

0)Pa

rtic

ipan

ts:G

loba

llym

obile

empl

oyee

sof

ala

rge

dis

trib

uted

US

head

quar

tere

dco

rpor

atio

n.Th

eyw

ere

eith

ertr

avel

ling

inA

sia,

Eur

ope

ord

iffe

rent

Nor

thA

mer

ican

coas

ts.

Sour

ces

ofda

ta:S

emi-

stru

ctur

edin

-dep

thin

terv

iew

s(n

=22

)an

dan

ethn

ogra

phic

stud

yof

nom

adic

wor

kers

(n=

6)fo

ron

ew

eek

aton

ew

ork

site

;nom

adic

wor

kers

wer

eal

sosh

adow

edfo

rfo

urho

urs.

Firs

t,te

leph

one

inte

rvie

ws

wer

eco

nduc

ted.

Seco

nd,d

ata

from

nom

adic

wor

kers

who

arri

ved

ata

part

icul

arsi

teof

the

com

pany

loca

ted

inth

eU

nite

dSt

ates

wer

eco

llect

ed.

xx

xx

x

Perr

yan

dB

rod

ie(2

006)

Part

icip

ants

:Use

rsof

dig

italm

obile

tech

nolo

gyof

dif

fere

ntpr

ofes

sion

san

dfr

omd

iffe

rent

orga

nisa

tion

s.E

mpl

oyee

sva

ried

byth

efr

eque

ncy

oftr

avel

and

des

tina

tion

(sam

e,d

iffe

rent

).Th

eem

ploy

ees

vari

edby

the

dis

tanc

etr

avel

led

:in

tern

atio

nal,

nati

onal

,reg

iona

land

loca

l.So

urce

sof

data

:Use

rsof

dig

italm

obile

tech

nolo

gy(n

=15

)w

ere

inte

rvie

wed

inth

eir

usua

lwor

king

envi

ronm

ent,

and

aty

pica

lwor

king

day

was

reco

rded

ina

dia

ryby

anem

ploy

ee.T

hete

chno

logy

prob

esw

ere

tria

lled

wit

hsi

xus

ers.

Obs

erva

tion

alfie

ldw

ork,

scen

ario

-bas

edd

esig

n,pa

per

prot

otyp

ing

and

brea

kdow

nan

alys

isw

ere

used

.

xx

xx

Perr

yet

al.(

2001

)Pa

rtic

ipan

ts:S

even

teen

mob

ilew

orke

rsof

ara

nge

ofd

iffe

rent

prof

essi

ons

acro

ssa

wid

ely

dis

pers

edra

nge

ofar

eas

inth

eU

K.W

orke

rsre

pres

ente

dd

iffe

rent

leve

lsof

mob

ility

inte

rms

oftr

ipdu

rati

onan

dd

ista

nce

trav

elle

d(e

ight

trav

ellin

gin

tern

atio

nally

,eig

htna

tion

ally

,tw

oin

loca

lreg

ion)

.So

urce

sof

data

:Aco

mbi

nati

onof

dia

ryte

chni

ques

(the

trip

dia

ries

),in

terv

iew

s(b

oth

befo

rean

daf

ter

busi

ness

trip

)an

dan

alys

isof

arte

fact

sus

eddu

ring

spec

ific

busi

ness

trip

sof

asa

mpl

eof

mob

ilew

orke

rs(n

=17

)ac

ross

dif

fere

ntpr

ofes

sion

s.A

follo

w-u

pst

udy

toin

terv

iew

mob

ilew

orke

rs(n

=5)

follo

win

ga

busi

ness

trip

(not

incl

uded

inth

ere

port

).

xx

x

Vart

iain

enan

dH

yrkk

änen

(201

0)Pa

rtic

ipan

ts:E

mpl

oyee

sof

six

dif

fere

nten

terp

rise

sw

hoha

dse

vera

ldif

fere

ntw

orkp

lace

s.C

ases

1–3

wer

egl

obal

lym

obile

,and

case

s4–

6w

ere

loca

llym

obile

empl

oyee

sba

sed

inFi

nlan

d.So

urce

ofda

ta:A

qual

itati

vem

ulti

-cas

est

udy

ofsi

xgr

oups

ofm

obile

,mul

ti-l

ocat

iona

lem

ploy

ees

(n=

41)

ofd

iffe

rent

occu

pati

ons.

The

data

wer

eco

llect

edin

thre

eph

ases

bym

eans

ofin

terv

iew

s:A

com

pany

repr

esen

tati

vew

asin

terv

iew

edto

get

anov

ervi

ewof

the

purp

oses

and

aim

sof

the

targ

etgr

oup;

each

empl

oyee

was

inte

rvie

wed

ind

ivid

ually

(sem

i-st

ruct

ured

inte

rvie

ws)

.

xx

xx

x

Ven

ezia

and

Alle

e(2

007)

Part

icip

ants

:Bot

hm

anag

ers

and

wor

kers

who

wor

ked

inse

vera

ldif

fere

ntpl

aces

and

wer

egl

obal

lym

obile

,re

pres

enti

ng84

wor

ldw

ide

orga

nisa

tion

sSo

urce

ofda

ta:A

surv

eyof

resp

ond

ents

invo

lved

inm

obile

wor

k(n

=55

7).T

wo

sam

ple

base

spa

rtic

ipat

edin

the

surv

ey.T

hefir

stw

asth

eva

lue

netw

ork

prac

titi

oner

com

mun

ity.

The

seco

ndsa

mpl

eco

nsis

ted

ofco

rpor

ate

cont

acts

.

xx

xx

x



looking for people, places and connections: hindrances when working in multiple locations: a review

Documents