This may be the author’s version of a work that was submitted/acceptedfor publication in the following source:

Karanikas, Nektarios & Cauchi, John(2020)Literature review on parameters related to Work-From-Home (WFH) ar-

rangements.

This file was downloaded from: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/205308/

c© Consult author(s) regarding copyright matters

This work is covered by copyright. Unless the document is being made available under aCreative Commons Licence, you must assume that re-use is limited to personal use andthat permission from the copyright owner must be obtained for all other uses. If the docu-ment is available under a Creative Commons License (or other specified license) then referto the Licence for details of permitted re-use. It is a condition of access that users recog-nise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. If you believe thatthis work infringes copyright please provide details by email to qut.copyright@qut.edu.au

License: Creative Commons: Attribution-Noncommercial-No DerivativeWorks 4.0

Notice: Please note that this document may not be the Version of Record(i.e. published version) of the work. Author manuscript versions (as Sub-mitted for peer review or as Accepted for publication after peer review) canbe identified by an absence of publisher branding and/or typeset appear-ance. If there is any doubt, please refer to the published source.

CRICOS No. 00213J

Project Report Literature Review on Parameters Related to Work-From-Home (WFH)

Arrangements

Commissioned by Queensland Council of Unions

Submitted by Queensland University of Technology

Authored by Nektarios Karanikas & John Paul Cauchi

Date 2nd October 2020

2 | P a g e

Executive Summary

Telecommuting, also named as telework, remote work or work-from-home (WFH), has become increasingly popular in recent years. It promises flexible work schedules, greater autonomy and job satisfaction, and can be occasionally enforced when circumstances dictate such as during public health emergencies. In light of emerging WFH requirements due to the COVID-19 pandemic, several organisations published guidelines to minimise health & safety risks of workers along with the need to ensure business continuity. Considering the above and following a request from the Queensland Council of Unions, this report constitutes a comprehensive review of recent literature with a focus on peer-reviewed empirical studies investigating various parameters organisations need to address when considering WFH arrangements together with associated benefits and challenges.

Excluding the area of WFH ergonomics, for which there have been publications and guidelines available for long, this report focuses on the prevalence and frequency of telecommuting, individual differences, mental health and well-being, the role of interactions and isolation, work-family balance, possible telework disruptions due to home-based factors, organisational considerations about the degrees of flexibility and autonomy along with technological support, and effective management strategies from the corporate and employee perspectives. Although the areas covered in this report represent the spectrum of WFH considerations adequately, we cannot eliminate the possibility of additional factors influencing telecommuting. Also, the findings presented hereby do not mean to offer legal advice and directions for compliance with applicable laws, regulations, codes of practices and other relevant standards that regulate work arrangements (e.g., health & safety, industrial relations, personal privacy).

The principal conclusion from the literature review is that commonly agreed, clear, transparent, and mutually respected WFH arrangements can benefit both employees and employers. Due to the particularities of telework, such arrangements cannot precisely replicate the settings and expectations usually set for work commuters and must be appropriately tailored to female and higher-age groups who may be at greater risk of unbalanced and conflicting home and work roles. Similarly, organisations must account for personality differences and preferences, and the provision of equal opportunities. Other considerations include provisions for part-time telecommuting, goal-oriented work, flexible working hours, the creation and respect of work-family boundaries and, importantly, arrangements to minimise isolation, including effective periodical on-site and off-site communications and opportunities for social interactions beyond work. Importantly, support should be provided with suitable working environments at home, with reliable and high-quality technology. The above constitute combinations of conditions which organisations can contemplate while establishing WFH arrangements.

3 | P a g e

1. Table of Contents

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 4

1.1. Current outlook ....................................................................................................................... 4

1.2. Objectives and scope of this report ........................................................................................ 5

2. Literature Review ............................................................................................................................ 7

2.1. Prevalence and frequency ...................................................................................................... 7

2.2. Individual differences .............................................................................................................. 9

2.2.1. Gender ............................................................................................................................ 9

2.2.2. Income .......................................................................................................................... 10

2.2.3. Personality .................................................................................................................... 10

2.3. Mental Health & Well-being ................................................................................................. 10

2.3.1. Positive effects .............................................................................................................. 10

2.3.2. Negative aspects ........................................................................................................... 12

2.3.3. Domestic Violence ........................................................................................................ 13

2.4. Interactions and isolation ..................................................................................................... 13

2.5. Work-family balance ............................................................................................................. 15

2.6. Home-sourced telework disruptions .................................................................................... 18

2.7. Organisational considerations .............................................................................................. 19

2.7.1. Flexibility and autonomy ............................................................................................... 19

2.7.2. The role of technology .................................................................................................. 21

2.8. Effective management strategies ......................................................................................... 22

2.8.1. Organisational strategies and support .......................................................................... 22

2.8.2. Individual strategies ...................................................................................................... 25

3. Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 26

4. References .................................................................................................................................... 28

4 | P a g e

1. Introduction

1.1. Current outlook

Although telecommuting, also known as telework, work-from-home (WFH), remote work and other similar terms, is not new, its necessity and accompanied arrangements gained significant traction during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Whereas WFH in the past was an option for organisations and the workforce, under the pandemic circumstances, it became imperative across many regions in their efforts minimise public health risks. The findings from the latest research report from the European Union suggest that telecommuters were disproportionately urban-based, white-collar, well-educated, service sector employees (Eurofound, 2020). Additionally, the same study revealed that the main determinants of WFH were the nature of the work and the extent to which telework was feasible, rather than the individual or household circumstances of employees (e.g., presence of school-age children).

Considering these circumstances, several publications targeted individuals to offer insights and support. For example, the UK Health & Safety Executive published guidance to minimise risks for employees working alone, including the population of telecommuters during the pandemic, and refers to the contact of lone workers with others, working environment and equipment considerations, possible impacts on mental health and well-being, pre-existing medical conditions, response to health & safety emergencies during working hours as well as training and supervisory arrangements (HSE, 2020). Hope (2020) referred to tips for successful WFH, including drawing a line between work and home (i.e. create a space dedicated to work, maintain a work schedule and separate work from housework), the use of available technology and setting boundaries with other household members. Limón (2020) additionally mentioned the idea to dress as someone would go to work and encouraged regular informal check-in sessions with colleagues.

In general, WFH in the COVID-19 period is accompanied by evident and hidden challenges as well as opportunities. For instance, Roman (2020) viewed these times as an opportunity to trigger students think about the world they live in, its interconnectedness, and consider a multitude of questions to help young people to identify and assess the possible impacts they might see from a society that works and educates itself remotely. In an industrial setting, Dewi and Adiarsi (2020) conducted a study with 109 executives of Indonesian Oil & Gas companies and found that although companies were slow in adapting during the enforced WFH "experiment" in 2020, opinions shifted toward making WFH part of standard business practice. The social responses captured by Tripathi (2020) through the analysis of 100,000 tweets revealed that more than 73% people had a positive sentiment towards WFH while almost 27% people had a negative perception towards this experience. Also, more than 60% of the people tweeted with emotions of trust, anticipation and joy for WFH culture while a few reported fear, sadness, anger and disgust.

Nevertheless, an earlier review performed by Manoochehri and Pinkerton (2003) covered several aspects of telework considering the possibility that management might not fully effectively

5 | P a g e

understand telecommuting, thus losing some of its potential benefits. The authors focused on both benefits and challenges in telework. Regarding the former, Manoochehri and Pinkerton (2003) referred to the flexibility regarding the location and working hours with gains related to decreased commute costs, with additional positive societal and environmental impact, increased productivity when the work schedule is adapted to periods staff can perform better, avoidance of inevitable distractions at work, and self-control of work-life balance. On the side of challenges, the authors above emphasised the necessity to consider technological, organisational, legal and interpersonal issues of the company and its teleworkers. Organisations must determine the suitability of WFH for their operations and culture (e.g., reliance on frequent and intense interactions amongst employees, sense of loss of control over the employees), the types of jobs that are appropriate for telecommuting, selection of employees who can perform while working from home (e.g., higher performance under supervision, the satisfaction of social needs at work), the cost of providing necessary technological infrastructure (e.g., communication links, compatibility of software used at home with company systems), and legal considerations such as the ones linked to health & safety and privacy issues. Manoochehri and Pinkerton (2003) concluded that organisations must develop a clear and transparent telecommuting policy by considering the various parameters above.

The points mentioned in the previous paragraph were examined partially by Turetken et al. (2011) who studied how employee tenure, work experience, communication skills, task interdependence, work output measurability, and task variety impacted productivity, performance, and satisfaction of Northern America telecommuters. The authors identified that in addition to the richness of the media provided through communication technologies, work experience, communication skills, and task interdependence can impact telecommuting success. Equally important, Turetken et al. (2011) stressed out that the definition of what constitutes success within WFH arrangements must consider possible conflicts in the perspectives of the different stakeholders involved.

A previous meta-analysis of 46 studies over a period of 20 years concluded that telework yielded small but considerable benefits relating to more job autonomy, lower work-family conflicts, increased job satisfaction and performance, and lower turnover intent and role stress. At the same time, WFH did not significantly harm collegial relationships, especially if telecommuting was not exceeding 2.5 days per week (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007). The findings from a study dated more than two decades ago and which investigated the reasons employees with higher and lower telecommuting frequencies quitted from their jobs (Varma et al., 1998), suggested that high-frequency telecommuters had a slight but significant tendency to quit sooner than those with lower teleworking frequencies. However, the main reasons given by the respondents were job-related and supervisor-related, and no participant mentioned dissatisfaction with telecommuting as a reason for quitting.

1.2. Objectives and scope of this report

Considering the emergence of WFH settings, especially during 2020, and the need to examine the introduction of an inclusive and sustainable WFH framework, this literature review report was commissioned by the Queensland Council of Unions (QCU) to offer insights into various areas relating

6 | P a g e

to WFH arrangements, including prevalence and frequency, individual differences and preferences, mental health and well-being, the role of interactions and isolation, work-family balance, possible telework disruptions due to home-based factors, organisational considerations about the degrees of flexibility and autonomy along with technological support, and effective management strategies from the organisational and employee perspectives.

This report is based on a comprehensive literature review of empirical studies on WFH aspects published in scientific indexes, including Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, PubMed and Medline and covering the areas listed above. Due to the limited time allotted for the completion of this report (21-9-2020 to 2-10-2020), the authors focused on articles published in English and available online through the library of the Queensland University of Technology (QUT), consulted publications with a descending chronological order to maximise currency of the material reviewed and screened relevant studies based on the detection of suitable keywords in the titles. If the latter strategy returned a limited number of articles, the authors extended the search to the abstract/summary fields. The literature search was not restricted to specific regions, and the relevance of each publication was evaluated after reading their full versions.

Based on the above, this report is not meant to constitute a systematic review of the literature and does not include meta-analyses of the various studies presented in the following sections. Also, as required by QCU, this work does not refer to human factors/ergonomics relating to desk work from home as those have been covered adequately in relevant academic and grey literature. Besides, the current report does not include specific health & safety information and directions as well as any other material pertinent to national and regional legislation, regulations, codes of practice, etc. which organisations and individuals have to observe. Nonetheless, the comprehensive set of literature discussed in this report covers the principal findings from research to date and draws various conclusions on the WFH aspects of interest mentioned above.

7 | P a g e

2. Literature Review

2.1. Prevalence and frequency

The latest data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that 24% of Australian workers worked at least part of their time from home (APSC, n.d.). This result matches data collected for Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) which in 2013 indicated that 23% of respondents worked from home at least some of their time (University of Melbourne, 2013). People also work from home to varying degrees with 71% of home telecommuters having worked less than 10 hours a week, and only 5% have reported working the majority of their time from home. Interestingly, the particular report states:

Those who reported working less than 10 hours a week at home were also more likely to work longer hours each week, suggesting much of the work undertaken at home by these employees was in addition to their standard or normal 'at-work' employment. These results suggest the majority of Australians who telework do so on an informal basis, with less than 1% of respondents having a formal teleworking arrangement in place with their employer.

The above statistics present a picture of varying degrees of telecommuting in Australia. Indeed, as the popularity of telecommuting spreads, it becomes clear that telecommuting can take various forms and setups, many of which are determined by the arrangements between the organisation and the employees. In the study published by Dougherty (2017) with the participation of 391 US single employers and public employer organisations, 93.8% of the respondents claimed that they offer some type of flexible work arrangement to their workers. As described in the article:

The most commonly offered flexible work arrangements include flexible work hours to accommodate special circumstances (92.1%), flexible work hours with alternative starting and quitting times (86.9%) and telecommuting on an ad hoc basis (79.8%).

Telecommuting can therefore be part of a flexible work arrangement (FWB) where people can work from home on an ad-hoc basis. The article above continues to describe that 73.7% of organisations employed telecommuters. Around half of the organisations offered telecommuting as a benefit to workers while a similar portion offered it for business needs. More than a third of the respondents reported their workers could telecommute or work remotely without meeting any special eligibility requirements other than having an appropriate workspace. Similarly, 36.1% mentioned that telecommuting was allowed based on a worker's job position (Dougherty, 2017).

Allen et al. (2015) refer to data from 2014 obtained from the Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM) and its annual surveys, which suggested that in the US, 59% of employers allowed some form of telecommuting. More than half of the respondents indicated that their organisations offered telecommuting intermittently or as a one-time event, with 29% providing it on

8 | P a g e

a part-time basis, and 20% on a full-time basis. Those figures are quite different from the ones described in the work of Dougherty (2017) published three years later, but as the specific author states:

…more than two in five (45.1%) respondents reported more workers telecommuting/working remotely than two years ago. More than one-third (35.4%) have the same number, and only 5.2% have fewer workers telecommuting or working remotely. Just over 38.2% of responding organizations expect an increased number of workers to telecommute or work remotely in the next two years. More than three in five (61.8%) respondents described the organizational impact of offering telecommuting/working remotely as significantly (22.6%) or somewhat (39.2%) positive.

Besides, it is noted that while Dougherty (2017) focused on data reported by organisations, the data by Allen et al. (2015) regarded employees. Nonetheless, in 2016, Fortune 1000 companies around the globe had acknowledged that 50-60% of employees were already mobile, and organisations were revamping their office space and telecommuting potential to reflect that reality (Picu & Dinu, 2016). Therefore, it is clear that the popularity of telework has been increasing considerably. However, as unfolded in the following sections of this report, any benefits attributed to telecommuting depend strongly on the arrangements between the organisation and telecommuters: whether it is seen as a replacement for office work hours or as an actual work arrangement. There are also significant differences between telecommuting on an ad-hoc basis versus those agreed to 'a priori'.

Recent literature discusses telecommuting because of the forced lockdowns adopted by most countries around the world as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic to prevent its spread. In their 2020 study in the Netherlands, de Haas et al. (2020) describe the effects of working arrangements responding to the requirements of the pandemic:

In 2019, 6% of respondents reported to work almost all their hours (>75%) from home. This figure sharply increased to 39% in the current situation. Currently, more than half (54%) of all workers work from home at least a part of the week. Physical meetings are also less common, with 30% of workers reporting an increase in remote meetings (for instance by videoconferencing)

Roughly 40% of the people who worked remotely considered themselves as an experienced home-worker before the coronavirus crisis hit the Netherlands, demonstrating the high prevalence of telecommuting in this country before the pandemic (de Haas et al., 2020); this also means, conversely, that the majority were experiencing telecommuting for the first time. The same study reports that over 60% of employees participating in more remote meetings during the lockdown have had positive experiences, with just less than half of all respondents considering remote meetings just as productive as physical meetings. Moreover, 27% of telecommuters expected to work from home more often in the future as they have found it to be an amenable and productive experience. Despite the lockdown restrictions, employees were positive about the changes in the way they had to work; over 60% of telecommuters during the lockdown found telework easy, and the majority rated current arrangements of working from home to be good with sufficient digital facilities (de Haas et al., 2020).

9 | P a g e

In the US-based study by Giménez-Nadal et al. (2019), their sample of over 43,000 employees found that telecommuters were found to work comparatively less during the central hours of the day, especially between 9 am and 3 pm, and seemed to enjoy more flexible time arrangements than regular commuters. The specific study also revealed that approximately half of all responding organisations required work during particular hours. About one-third of the respondents reported that telecommuters could choose their own work schedules as long as they could ensure completion of their work. Additionally, 28.1% of telecommuters were required to track their working hours and less than a fifth were asked to work in the office a minimum number of days per week or month.

2.2. Individual differences

2.2.1. Gender

The study of Wheatley (2017) found a gender effect with women using less flexible work arrangements, including telecommuting, compared to men and often opting for reduced working hours. This seems to be the result of societal expectations and a greater likelihood of female employees using such arrangements to facilitate the management of their domestic housework and mothering roles, turning an otherwise 'optimal' arrangement into a 'restrictive' one. Also, Van der Lippe and Lippényi (2018) found that intense expectations from work can adversely affect work-family conflicts. Based on their findings, the authors above argue there is a strong gendered effect in telecommuting benefits: WFH leads to more work-family conflicts for women. The expectations of permeability of boundaries are much higher on women, reflecting societal expectations of women to be more present as parents than men. This, as the same authors articulate, could be partly alleviated through support networks within the organisation, especially networks that include co-workers who are women. Van der Lippe & Lippényi (2018) also state that any organisation offering telecommuting must be cognisant of these possible implications of WFH on women, and the latter should be part of the conversation about telecommuting arrangements and settings, including setup at home, to provide maximal benefits.

In the Australian context, an important caveat is that, particularly for women, the intensity of working from home escalates dramatically with total hours worked (Dockery & Bawa, 2014). This raises the possibility that working from home facilitates excessive working hours that may exacerbate work-to-family conflict, a situation which might not be taken into account by workers when they assess the merits of their own working arrangements and decide to bring work home. On the other hand, the meta-analysis conducted by Gajendran and Harrison (2007) uncovered that study samples with more significant proportions of women teleworkers experienced greater benefits in the form of improved performance (supervisor or objective ratings) and improved, rather than worsened, perceived career prospects. The authors above attributed this to the fact that women continue to have the primary responsibility in the family domain and, consequently, might benefit more than men through increased control over the work and family domains.

10 | P a g e

In general, increased parent-child interactions for telecommuting mothers suggests the potential for intensification of the gendered division of labour in households. Indeed, the perpetuation of domestic roles and burdens on women during worktime could easily increase the work-family conflict discussed in section 2.5 below (Kim, 2018; van der Lippe & Lippényi, 2020). Kim (2018) argues that the implementation of policies such as paid maternity and paternity leave, which enhance gender neutrality, can help alleviate such risks. Van der Lippe & Lippényi (2018), on the other hand, highlight managerial support as key to moderating the risk of work-family conflict. As Giménez-Nadal et al. (2019) concluded, while male telecommuters can benefit from WFH, this is not reported by female teleworkers :

…male commuters reported higher levels of sadness, stress and tiredness compared to telecommuters. Estimates indicate that male teleworkers report lower levels of stress, pain and tiredness, with this difference being statistically significant at the 95% confidence level. We find no statistically significant differences between female teleworkers and commuters in the feelings reported during market work activities.

2.2.2. Income

The differences in risk of work-family conflicts also regard the income sphere: low-income telecommuters, in general, tend to have less control and more limited schedule options than mid- and high- income workers. This may reduce their ability to coordinate work and family demands, thereby removing the possible benefits of telecommuting arrangements (Kim, 2018). The particular situation, again, includes a gendered effect: while flexible schedules seem to benefit fathers with daily routine interactions with their children, telecommuting arrangements in particularly suited low-income working mothers. This suggests that work flexibility and arrangements might have a different impact across different working groups (e.g., low-income mothers vs high-income mothers) as corroborated by Ojala et al. (2014), who found that telecommuter mothers on low-income tended to look after their children while simultaneously working.

2.2.3. Personality

There are notable differences in the experience of telecommuting depending on personality type. While research in this area is limited, employees who are more introverted and open to the idea of telecommuting tend to have a more positive experience. On the other hand, individuals who are extroverted and desire to have a strong boundary between work and home tend to find telecommuting a more negative experience overall (Anderson et al., 2015).

2.3. Mental Health & Well-being

2.3.1. Positive effects

Telecommuting has been positively associated with a sense of wellbeing, with several studies finding that WFH reduces the risk for depression and stress (Anderson et al., 2015; Biron & van Veldhoven,

11 | P a g e

2016; Henke et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2020). Wang et al. (2020) found that teleworkers experienced a more positive sense of well-being and fewer job-related adverse effects on well-being. This varied by personality type, with individuals expressing more 'openness' to the idea of WFH being more likely to report positive outcomes. Importantly, strong social networks beyond work seem to be linked to higher levels of positive effects, indicating that the sense of 'physical isolation' from the working environment can be compensated by maintaining a strong social network. Additionally, WFH may provide tangible benefits of increased family time, especially for new mothers through a reduction of commutes and more time available to spend with children at home (Wang et al., 2020).

Moreover, as technology enables better means and ease of communication with rich and synchronous communication media, telecommuters are finding it easier to overcome distance and psychological isolation, provided that such technology enables interaction quality comparable to face-to-face meetings (Shepherd-Banigan et al., 2016). Findings from Biron & van Veldhoven (2016) suggest that the ability of telecommuters to concentrate is higher and the need for recovery from work (known as 'recharging the battery') is lower on WFH days than on office days. As the authors above posit, this occurs because of the lack of demand for home-work-home travelling lowers mental workload (e.g., no concerns about traffic and on-time arrival at work). Also, Biron & van Veldhoven (2016) view fewer social interactions as both a liability and an asset: while WFH might decrease social interactions with colleagues, it minimises efforts to create and maintain social ties at work.

Importantly, telecommuting provides the employee with a sense of control over the frequency, duration and timing of interactions with colleagues which would otherwise be a source of distraction at work (Shepherd-Banigan et al., 2016). Besides, positive experiences while working remotely might lead to a greater sense of bonding within the organisation and a greater sense of commitment to the latter (Wang et al., 2020):

"individuals attribute the positive connections they have with some organizational members to all organization members, even to those with whom they have no interaction, which leads to organizational-level commitment behaviors such as intentions to stay, gift-giving, and effort sharing"

Notably, however, literature refers to two conditions with a decisive role in the health and wellbeing potential of employees:

• Whether the employee was given the option, rather than being forced to work from home; • Whether the employee was asked to work exclusively from home.

Findings indicate that perhaps the most conducive aspect to the wellbeing of the individual is the ability to work from home, as opposed to the total number of hours spent working from home. (Anderson et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2020). Control, meaning the capacity for the employee to manage the day's schedule and work boundaries, and flexibility are associated with positive mental health and well-being outcomes (Anderson et al., 2015). Indeed, worktime control is a useful stress-coping resource among employees. For example, employees who perceive they have control over their time

12 | P a g e

experience greater satisfaction and fewer tensions as well as fewer somatic symptoms in response to their job (Biron & van Veldhoven, 2016). These effects are most likely due to increased autonomy, schedule flexibility, decreased interruptions, and increased ability to accomplish goals. Anderson et al. (2015) also consider the possibility that less commuting time affords more time for sleep or exercise, leading to a better sense of wellbeing and better health outcomes.

It seems, though, that the positive effects of telecommuting diminish for those who work exclusively from home. The 'sweet spot hypothesis' posits that employees who use telecommuting occasionally experienced the best outcomes. For instance, a study carried out in 2016 on 3,072 employees in the US working for a finance company found that of the 2,152 employees working at 'prime-time' (usual work hours), employees working from home 8 hrs per month or less (low-intensity telecommuting) were likely to reduce their risk for depression better than non-telecommuters. However, this positive effect diminished for those working at home for more extended hours (Henke et al., 2016). These findings align with the work of Biron and van Veldhoven (2016), who, based on their research and other literature, infer that evenly-split part-time telework arrangements are optimal for telecommuter satisfaction, allowing regular interactions with work colleagues while permitting flexible schedules.

2.3.2. Negative aspects

Telecommuting may be associated with negative effects such as psychological and physical isolation as it dramatically limits workers opportunities for direct contact and interaction. Psychological isolation "is a feeling that one is disconnected from others, lacking desired social and influential network connections, and that the need for support, understanding, and other social and emotional aspects of interaction are not fulfilled" (Shepherd-Banigan et al., 2016). Failing to meet this need can lead to negative consequences such as depression, anxiety, and psychological isolation. Physically isolated telecommuters tend to feel frustrated and untrusted, prone to loneliness. They also have a lower sense of 'belonging' and organisational identification and may find it impossible to maintain meaningful relationships with co-workers (Shepherd-Banigan et al., 2016).

Proximity to colleagues is a potent factor in relationships' formation and can give a strong sense of belonging to an organisation. However, contrary to the findings about the positive effects above, although computer-mediated communication tools provide significantly enabling means of interacting with others, they simply cannot provide the positive effects of face-to-face interactions occurring when two people meet; remote communication cannot replace spontaneous, informal interactions between colleagues. Furthermore, affective commitment, meaning the emotional connection to an organisation, might decrease, leading to a decline in work quality and enthusiasm (de Vries et al., 2019). As a result of extensive hours working from home, telecommuters might feel increasingly marginalised, forgotten or disrespected, with fewer opportunities to advance in their career (Bartel et al., 2012). Through continually having to prove oneself, telecommuters who spend most or all of their time WFH experience a sense of loss of social ties and may feel more 'like a temporary consultant' than an employee (Bartel et al., 2012).

13 | P a g e

Nonetheless, physical isolation can be both a symptom and a cause of poor mental health. Those with poor mental health states can have an exacerbated sense of isolation, which is further perpetuated by telecommuting. These mental effects also differ according to employee type. In their study on the mental effects of social isolation, Rohde et al. (2016) found that people with higher levels of education had greater sensitivity to feelings of isolation; women were more strongly affected than men, and people in an older age group can be at an even higher risk.

Equally important, several organisations may assume that the flexibility provided within WFH arrangements is coupled with availability of telecommuters beyond standard work hours (Shepherd-Banigan et al., 2016), which undermines work-life balance as discussed in more detail in section 2.5. Moreover, it has become harder for several people to disconnect and recover from work outside typical work hours, a trend linked to work vs home conflicts, stress and mental illness. Workers who successfully 'integrate' work at home might be less likely to experience such strife as they are better at allocating preferred/required time to home roles (Gadeyne et al., 2018).

Additionally, connectivity via technological devices seems to create the impression or expectation of working more hours (e.g., checking emails outside of regular working hours), meaning that the probability of working overtime is higher for telecommuters than for non-telecommuters (Allen et al., 2015; Asgari et al., 2016). Therefore, workers who find it difficult to create boundaries and limits to their work from home often experience a spillover into extra work hours, which leads to a sense of overextension that can perpetuate adverse wellbeing outcomes (Arlinghaus & Nachreiner, 2014). These can include stress, anxiety, depression, sickness and other effects that further sap at the confidence of the telecommuter and their output. Indeed, telecommuting may increase the risk of working despite illness, known as sickness presenteeism: the likelihood of showing presenteeism increases with telecommuting intensity (Steidelmüller et al., 2020).

2.3.3. Domestic Violence

Despite the increasing popularity of telecommuting, we could not identify literature on the association between domestic violence and telework over the past decade (2010-2020). Most of the research relates to 'family-work' conflict in section 2.5 below and defined as 'a form of inter-role conflict in which the role pressures from the work and family domains are mutually incompatible in some respect' (Sarbu, 2018). Some literature point to the possible association of 'forced' telecommuting during the COVID-19 lockdown with domestic violence (Das et al., 2020; Hamadani et al., 2020) and a Guardian article released in late March 2020 reported the alarming rise of domestic violence during the lockdown (Graham-Harrison et al., 2020). However, no literature specifically links telecommuting to domestic violence as enforced lockdowns, quarantines and isolations are not merely associated with telework.

2.4. Interactions and isolation

In their Netherlands study, Nijp et al. (2016) found that work flexibility and telework did not significantly affect interactions amongst employees. Those newly introduced work arrangements

14 | P a g e

examined in the specific study, which featured a case and a control group, did not influence major psychosocial work characteristics. However, it is essential to note that this study regarded employees who were strongly encouraged to work from home one to two days a week, thereby allowing social interactions among co-workers during the commuting days. On the other hand, Van der Lippe and Lippényi (2020), who investigated the effect of WFH on co-workers, found that individual employees performed better when their colleagues did not telecommute.

The above, once more, suggests that the extent of telecommuting appears to be consequential for the functioning of the individual employee. When comparing members of a team, the study of Van der Lippe and Lippényi (2020) found that individual employees telecommuting from home had a lower job performance compared to other workers on the same team. Besides, telecommuting was found to have a negative effect not only on the telecommuter but the co-workers who might be working from the office. However, these findings are strongly dependent on the telecommuting arrangements and the intensity of telecommuting.

Indeed, many social interactions at work involve 'bouncing off of ideas' with colleagues which, in telecommuting, may be limited (Di Domenico et al., 2014). Van der Lippe and Lippényi (2020) also describe how the effectiveness and job performance of telecommuters rests firmly on them knowing what their co-workers are doing at work, something that usually is achieved through social interaction at the workplace. As the authors above, state:

We advise organisations to focus on improving cooperation among team members when many employees work from home. Interaction with colleagues, whether or not someone is working from home, is the key to cooperation and efficiency, and it is a challenge to construct teams in which teleworkers work efficiently. At this moment, organisational policies related to working from home mostly focus on the level of the individual worker.

Wang et al. (2020) also consider the possibility that telecommuters might hesitate to chat with their colleagues informally, as they could give the impression that they have excessive free time on their hands. Nevertheless, the authors above distinguish between 'physical isolation', or the actual separation from the physical office space, and 'psychological isolation', which is the feeling of being isolated from the office co-workers and culture, and conclude that:

This study contributes to the literature by suggesting it is psychological isolation that is associated with telecommuters' interpersonal and affective bonds with colleagues, challenging the presumption that greater physical isolation reduces affective commitment. However, the findings from this study do not provide evidence that physical isolation is correlated with psychological isolation. Given the widespread availability of rich, synchronous communication media, it is possible that telecommuters can overcome distance and psychological isolation through technologies that provide interaction quality comparable to face-to-face meetings.

Holland et al. (2016) found that without physical proximity to their co-workers and other employees in the organisation, telecommuters find fewer opportunities for interaction and relationship building.

15 | P a g e

This makes telecommuters feel 'taken for granted' at work, often compensating by working overtime or trying their utmost to appease their supervisors or managers in a bid to deal with uncertainty. Physical isolation also led to telecommuters believing that they were less respected in their organizations (Wang et al., 2020) and that they needed to overcompensate for their telecommuting arrangements. This led to harmful spillover effects, including establishing a sense of 'perpetual availability' that undermined the benefits of telecommuting and possible work-life balance benefits. Such outcomes create frustration and mistrust, and a growing sense of 'loneliness' due to an increasing inability to maintain meaningful work relationships with co-workers.

Thus, a 'lack of trust' or confidence in telecommuting arrangements can also raise employees' concerns about negative career implications due to lack of face-to-face interaction, limited or lost social networks and poor management practice that limit training/promotion (Bathini & Kandathil, 2020). Moreover, when telecommuting intensity increases, the pressure to reciprocate and to manage co-worker expectations is likely to be felt more acutely. In such a scenario, telecommuters are more likely to work harder and longer than in-office workers to complete their tasks and help others. Telecommuters perceive they have to go 'above and beyond' because their relative 'invisibility' to others at a central work location may induce fears related to career progression and organisation satisfaction with their work (Gajendran et al., 2015).

A study carried out in China (Raghuram & Fang, 2014), where cultural perceptions of supervisory power are high, found that telecommuting intensity and stress can increase based on the power provided to the supervisor. Especially, the concept of 'reward power' of a supervisor to praise an employee for demonstrating desired behaviour as 'working hard to achieve goals', efforts to 'appease' supervisors, rather than attain goals, can strongly affect employee stress levels (Raghuram & Fang, 2014).

2.5. Work-family balance

One of the biggest concerns surrounding work today is the work-family balance, especially as the rise and normalisation of dual-income families over the past few decades (Duxbury & Halinski, 2014) bring challenges in managing childrearing and work/career prospects in parallel. Work-family balance has been defined as "an accomplishment of role-related expectations that are negotiated and shared between an individual and his/her role-related partners in the work and family domains" (Cicei, 2015). To address this, many organisations now offer flexible work arrangements that "enable employees to vary, at least to some extent, when and/or where they work or to otherwise diverge from traditional working hours" (Cicei, 2015).

Current literature on these arrangements and their benefits suggest that telecommuting helps employees cope with parenting responsibilities and house roles during the day that would otherwise increase family role overload (Duxbury & Halinski, 2014). This is increasingly recognised by organisations worldwide, as it can be seen through the proliferation of flexible work arrangements, daycare on-site, and telework (Hunter et al., 2019). Such work arrangements can reduce the so-called

16 | P a g e

work-family conflicts (WFC) to varying degrees. This could take various forms, for example, by allowing parents to participate in school meetings by changing their work schedules and hours (Kim, 2018). However, this can also blur the boundaries between work and home, which could bring strain to the work-family balance (Hunter et al., 2019).

The spillover of work into family life is a risk of telecommuting, and its avoidance requires careful attention. In the study by Duxbury and Halinski (2014), telecommuting served as a good moderator in lowering work strain. However, the greater the demands at home (e.g., more childcare), the less likely an employee was to be carrying out telework. The particular study posits that this could be more due to organisations being reluctant to allow or encourage teleworking for individuals with younger children than those with fewer demands at home, due to a perceived lack of trust in attentiveness to work compared to the needs of the child.

This struggle between work and home roles manifests itself more strongly when telecommuting is enforced and not merely offered as a possible work arrangement. In their study on an organisation in the Netherlands, Lapierre et al. (2015) found that employees being forced to work from home experienced more pressure from family roles (e.g., house chores, child attention) which distracted them from work. This conflict between work and family can regard both directions (i.e. work vs home and home vs work), each demanding attention from the individual and overriding obligations (Lapierre et al., 2015). As the same authors state, individuals who might not necessarily want to work from home might be unable to set up strategies to form effective work-family boundaries, as discussed further below. Lapierre et al. (2015) also found multiple instances of work-family conflict in individuals, including examples such as:

a) not being able to stop working; b) continuing to work evenings and weekends when family members were around; c) not being able to close their laptops at home; d) worries that the new arrangement had become a burden on their marriage; e) lacking the skills to separate work from family life since the new policy had come into effect.

Therefore, the study above suggests that employees should be allowed to choose the degree of telecommuting intensity that is best suited to their various role demands. Organisations that impose greater physical integration of work and family life introduce the challenge of creating and maintaining boundaries between roles. If not managed carefully, WFH could infringe on family life and increase feelings of guilt about neglecting home issues (Ojala et al., 2014). Hence, a degree of control afforded to the individual telecommuters with organisational support could help manage work-family conflict (Ongaki, 2019). Voluntary telecommuting has the benefit of allowing people to escape work distractions, better manage home-work conflicts, while avoiding work-related strain such as time and commute commitments (Duxbury & Halinski, 2014; Gadeyne et al., 2018; Lapierre et al., 2015). This rests firmly, however, on:

a) The ability of the telecommuter to set effective work-home boundaries;

17 | P a g e

b) The level of support for telecommuting offered by the organisation; c) The level of control given to the telecommuter.

Individuals who are being highly controlled by their supervisor are constrained in the same manner as those who work at their office, rendering the former unable to take care of responsibilities outside work at convenient times (Solís, 2016). Additionally, Solís (2016) provides results showing that work-family conflict is heavily affected by factors such as the space used for working at home, the presence of other persons at home and the number of days of telecommuting. However, even when such arrangements are set up and adhered to, it is more likely for work to interfere with family than vice-versa (Solís, 2016). Findings of this study include:

a) The space used at home for telecommuting affects work-family conflict; b) Individuals with an exclusive room for working encounter less conflict and work fewer hours per

work; c) Other persons at home during telecommuting generates a negative impact on family time; d) The more habituated a family is to the telecommuter, the less the conflict.

Moreover, while working from the comfort of home, one might feel 'obliged' to work more hours to appear more 'visible'. In the study by Glass and Noonan (2016) in the US, who used data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY) gathered between 1989 to 2008, telecommuting hours were three times more likely to occur as overtime and in addition to the hours worked on-site. These findings indicate that, if unmanaged, telecommuting seems to facilitate longer work hours, rather than solely decrease physical presence at the workplace. Therefore, the risks of poorly managed telecommuting leading to a spillover of work into the home should be accounted (Abendroth & Reimann, 2018).

Fonner and Stache (2012) explored the concept of creating 'space' for work and described the importance of role transition in quasi-religious terms. Referring to the process of transiting from home to work roles in the home setting as a 'rite of separation' (Fonner & Stache, 2012):

The physical ritual of opening, using or shutting down and leaving behind work- related technology reinforces the work–home boundary for teleworkers as well as for household members who can visibly observe the use of this equipment and the associated transitions between roles. Teleworkers' connectivity to the organisation's network and use of organisational technology helped to signify the transition into and out of work and home roles. First, by turning on the computer and logging into the organisational network, checking voicemail or email and otherwise becoming 'connected', teleworkers engage in a symbolic rite of passage that signifies the shift from the home domain into the work role. In some cases, teleworkers' connectivity––and their associated entry into or out of the work role––is visible to their colleagues as they log into or out of the organisational network

Here, the rite of separation serves not only as a clear signal to home-sharers but also to work colleagues, and psychologically prepares the telecommuter to the new paradigm of work, even from

18 | P a g e

the comfort of the home setting. Meager (Meager, 2020) shares an anecdotal tip as a means of ensuring productivity:

Trying to emulate the office scenario you're used to as closely as possible is important. I have a large desk with a monitor and a mouse and keyboard that plug into a USB extension. Plugging in every morning feels almost exactly the same as it does in the office, which is psychologically important for me. It's tempting to lie on the sofa with the TV on, but your productivity will definitely suffer.

The article of Eddleston and Mulki (2017) exploring the 'complexity of work embeddedness' aligns with the literature reviewed above and confirms that clarification of boundaries with the rest of the family in the home setting is key where the establishment of a workspace becomes less a luxury and more a structure of separation and boundaries that need to be respected at all times.

2.6. Home-sourced telework disruptions

Interruption management is paramount to delineate the work and home domains not only for achieving goals but also managing work-boundary violations, and, in general, simplifying one's work environment (Hunter et al., 2019; Kim, 2018; Lapierre et al., 2015). This necessity can be difficult to explain to children, other family members, neighbours and relatives and other people sharing the same home or live close (Krasulja et al., 2015). Hunter et al. (2019) suggest that telecommuting employees should clearly communicate availability expectations to members of the family as well as to their supervisor. Supervisors should be informed on the more likely times that family would be contacting the telecommuter (e.g., lunchtime, or picking up the child from school). In their efforts to manage possible boundary violations, teleworkers should employ boundary management strategies with the express aim of avoiding work goal obstruction. This can be achieved by setting apart specific times in their workday for family time, for example, on the children's arrival from school. This way, teleworkers can allow a degree of work permeability to the family at certain allocated times, while, at the same time, set limits to family interruptions that could adversely affect workflow and goal attainment (Hunter et al., 2019).

The team at the International Financial Law Review journal experienced various telecommuting issues (Meager, 2020) which warrant consideration, especially regarding the importance of setting up a secure and separate workspace and the need to set up boundaries between family life and work to avoid unfavourable disruptions. For example:

Use a phone headset for better call quality. I have been amazed at the number of colleagues who aren't using headsets at home. They're inexpensive; pick one up. And remember to always put your phone on mute when you're not the speaker on a conference call. I've been on too many conference calls where judicious use of the mute button would have kept fellow conference call participants from hearing the dog barking or the baby crying.

19 | P a g e

In addition to cases where teleworkers might have less control over distractions than in the work environment, especially with young members of the family, unexpected occurrences can relate to family pets, for example (Meager, 2020):

One day, in the middle of a research call with a law firm, the line suddenly went dead mid-sentence. I looked around, checked the data, checked Skype, double-checked the internet, then pulled up the loose cord of my headset. The rabbit had eaten clean through it. I had to get up, run out the house, run two blocks to the computer shop, buy a new headset and run back - where I dialled back in to resume the call. And there were droppings all over the sofa.

While somewhat amusing, these real-life occurrences cannot be underestimated. The importance of setup and setting were also explored in the article of Meager (2020), delineating the fact that a comfortable environment matters, and is a vital enabler of effective telecommuting:

Firstly, invest in a comfortable home office chair. You're going to be spending a lot of time in it. Next find a quiet space that will allow you to concentrate. It's particularly challenging during this crisis as you may have spouses also working from home, perhaps with children too. Find the quietest space possible. Barring that, find a quality pair of earplugs - preferably the brightly coloured ones so your family knows you're not ignoring them.

2.7. Organisational considerations

2.7.1. Flexibility and autonomy

There is significant evidence that allowing a semblance of control over working schedules makes job offers more attractive to potential workers (Di Domenico et al., 2014). This is especially relevant to individuals who work in fields which entail work that can be done over a computer, as with software development. A study by Conradie and de Klerk (2019) finds that in the field of software development, a booming sector in South Africa, offering telecommuting and flexible work arrangements were seen as attractive prepositions to recruit more people. Telecommuting also gives companies the ability to recruit from a much larger talent pool. Indeed, studies find that, as aforementioned, flexible working arrangements including telecommuting allow workers to continue making productive contributions to the workforce, achieving goals, while also attending to home responsibilities, a degree of control that is seen as desirable (Alfred M. Dockery & Bawa, 2018).

However, the benefits from telecommuting depend strongly on job complexity as findings indicate that for telecommuters who held complex jobs, especially jobs involving low levels of interdependence and low needs of social support, telecommuting had a negligible to a positive association with job performance (Allen et al., 2015; Golden & Gajendran, 2019). Technology enablement does not necessarily lead to effective telecommuting. While many jobs can be carried out from the comfort of home, others cannot. In general, jobs that require frequent face-to-face interaction, unscheduled meetings and manual work cannot be relegated to telecommuting (Zia & Bilal, 2017). This has become clear in the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020: in the US, from February to

20 | P a g e

April unemployment was far higher for those organisations in which telecommuting is not a viable option for most of the workforce such as mining and agriculture (Dey et al., 2020).

In their 2017 longitudinal study carried out in Spain, Masuda et al. (2017) found that employees given the opportunity to telecommute were more likely to perceive higher support in attaining work goals, and consequently showed higher goal achievement and organisational engagement at the end of the work year. Similarly, a study carried out using a sample of over 5,000 UK households (Daniel Wheatley, 2017) found that flexible work arrangements, including telework, had a positive effect as employees had more control over the use of their time and a greater amount of choice.

The findings of Masuda et al. (2017) also indicate that individuals who worked in organisations that offer telecommuting in an effective manner were more engaged than those who did not enjoy the option to telework. This rested on a fundamental arrangement where telecommuting was heavily based on the attainment of realistic work goals and perceived supervisory support and welfare care. Other practices facilitating telework arrangements include compressed workweeks, part-time work, and job-sharing (Masuda et al., 2017). Gajendran et al. (2015) also explored the theory of Effective Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) under which the employee is allowed a certain degree of autonomy that improves task performance and contextual performance, relying strongly on the supervisor's trust of the employee to achieve work goals. Telecommuting rests on both effective LMX relationships and the ability and enthusiasm of the organisation in sustaining such a relationship – the 'normativeness' of telecommuting in a company. Furthermore, the study of Gajendran et al. (2015) suggested that telecommuting does not impose significant performance costs; instead, when functioning properly, telecommuting affects worker performance and the sense of 'belonging' to an organisation positively. Interestingly also, a high degree of LMX was found to improve performance at any intensity of telecommuting.

Indeed, the study by Kaduk et al. (2019) found that not all flexible work arrangements, including telecommuting, are well perceived. More specifically, involuntary or enforced flexibility arrangements requiring different work schedules vary considerably and are not well received as opposed to voluntary flexibility, where employees decide the hours to enter the office. The tension between control and autonomy on one side, and supervision and enforced work schedules emerge as a point of contention between the employee and the organisation when teleworking. Thus, the benefits of telecommuting can only be reaped through a mutual arrangement, careful engagement and effective leader-member exchange (de Vries et al., 2019).

On the other hand, opportunities for homeworking remain limited when managers remain sceptical and where more 'conventional' work-office arrangements still dominate (Wheatley, 2017). Lack of trust might lead to excessive surveillance and monitoring efforts that might bring a considerable invasion of privacy at home. The recent study by Bathini & Kandathil (2020) serves as an example of extreme telecommuting supervision, demonstrating scenarios where trust between the employee and the supervisor is at a minimum. Carried out in Information & Technology (IT) companies in India, this study finds that a lack of trust of supervisors in their employees leads to management opting for

21 | P a g e

increased Information Communication Technology (ICT) use to enable intense employee surveillance. Technological and bureaucratic methods employed by these companies include a battery of control mechanisms such as setting targets with greater detail, all-too-frequent monitoring, and even visiting telecommuter homes to check on their employees. Such pressures lead to teleworkers working extensive hours to 'overcompensate' as fears of 'not doing enough' intensify the use of such control mechanisms. Some companies resorted to supervisors constantly checking on their employees with messages such as 'Where are you?' when temporarily off the Instant Messenger system employed by a company. Besides, employees were required to write a daily report, detailing work carried out and goals attained. Such intensive scrutiny leads to increasing fears of losing a job, stress and adverse mental health outcomes.

2.7.2. The role of technology

Telecommuting is an increasingly viable option for many organisations around the world and primarily enabled through the proliferation of enabling technologies. These include high-speed internet, management software, messenger communication systems and computing hardware that is increasingly prevalent in our homes and, through smartphones, our pockets. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the resilience of some organisations was allowed through technology-supported telecommuting, which serves to showcase its potential (Dey et al., 2020). Nevertheless, while acting as a great enabler, the uptake of telecommuting also rests on various factors.

In countries where high-quality internet penetrance is prevalent, the prevalence of telecommuting is on the rise. The adequacy of high-quality technological devices and other equipment strongly determines the potential of telecommuting (Ansong & Boateng, 2018). Conversely, in countries where such technology is not highly present, telecommuting can be hindered to a significant degree (Zia & Bilal, 2017). Besides, another critical enabler for telecommuting is the penetrance of broadband networks. In his study carried out in Ireland, Hynes (2016) found insufficient broadband service and poor policies leading to disorganised approaches to telecommuting, with frequent technical failures often impeding effective organisation management and potential. The factors above can regard also regard local areas and regions, and organisations with WFH arrangements need to consider the whole spectrum of their workforce spread.

Conversely, the rollout of broadband into rural areas in Southwest Ontario have led to an increase in telecommuting uptake and overall productivity (Hambly & Lee, 2019). The authors above found that IT-based companies reported an increase of 25% in overall productivity for companies permitting telecommuting, which was attributed to a decrease in absenteeism and presenteeism along with the time saved from commuting. This latter factor is highly significant as it has been estimated that in areas with high-quality broadband rollout, telecommuters enjoyed $12,000 in savings every year if they telecommuted three days a week (Hambly & Lee, 2019).

Moreover, the study of Donnelly and Proctor-Thomson (2015) in New Zealand examined the feasibility of telecommuting after the 2010-2012 series of earthquakes in Christchurch. The government agency under study was able to effectively function to some degree via telecommuting, even when its staff

22 | P a g e

was expressly instructed not to commute to the head offices due to structural risk. However, while technology clearly allowed the function of the specific organisation, it was also subject to frequent patchy service due to issues with the telecommunications networks and had to resolve problems related to a suitable workspace environment (e.g., shared or home-based workspaces). This study highlighted the need for the establishment of backup systems in the event of primary system failure, especially in places with a high risk of natural disasters (Donnelly & Proctor-Thomson, 2015).

2.8. Effective management strategies

2.8.1. Organisational strategies and support

Structures that are conducive to building trust between the supervisor and the employee determine the effectiveness of telecommuting arrangements and the benefits for either partner in the work relationship. This depends strongly on the job, persons involved, and the degree of enablement of telecommuting the institution affords (Schulte, 2015). Importantly, employees report lesser access to arrangements where supervisors remain unsupportive of flexible working (Golden & Gajendran, 2019; Wheatley, 2012). Further literature on this subject finds that managers are more willing to allow extensive telecommuting to employees who they perceive as conscientious and trustworthy (Allen et al., 2015; Biron & van Veldhoven, 2016; Golden & Gajendran, 2019; Daniel Wheatley, 2017). Managers must be capable of recognising and paying attention to job performance depending on the context of the employee, both in terms of their job and location. Through effective communication with the employee or prospective telecommuter, managers can make more informed decisions regarding WFH arrangements that encompass not just the work-family benefits for telecommuters but their performance and deliverables (Golden & Gajendran, 2019).

Therefore, research suggests a need for balance between creating flexibility for employees and ensuring businesses can continue to operate. To facilitate such an arrangement, telecommuters need to be managed carefully to avoid resentment among office-attending co-workers who may feel burdened with additional responsibilities or workload as their colleagues are 'invisible' at the office (Wheatley, 2017). Equally crucial, organisations exploring telecommuting for their employees need to ensure a supportive work environment, which in turn 'normalises' telecommuting and reaps the benefits of such a work arrangement (Allen et al., 2015). The study by Basile and Beauregard (2016) highlights that one way of ensuring a supportive telework environment is by considering the preferences of employees.

In their study of telecommuting arrangements in China, Raghuram and Fang (2014) suggest setting up regular group meetings, ensuring reliable intranet/internet communication systems, and the distribution of informative, and frequent newsletters. Additionally, organising social events outside the scope of work can also lead to increased cohesion among employees, which addresses visibility concerns. Regular communication between supervisors and telecommuters is also key to a supportive work environment. This is especially important at the start of a telecommuting job. Meetings would be held among people trained for remote work, including sharing screens. Boccabella & Bain (2018)

23 | P a g e

suggest regular one-to-one check-ins, which may reduce in frequency over time as the telecommuting relationship 'normalises' and work goals are attained.

In their case study of a US-based company, Henke et al. (2016) found that the company had taken 'a number of steps to create a successful flexibility program and to promote a supportive culture of flexibility that may not be common across employers', thereby creating a supportive culture. Creating such a culture is beneficial for managers, primarily because of the possibility that engagement between the telecommuting employee and the manager may decrease over a long period (e.g. one year) as trust and confidence in goal attainment are assured.

Notably, Basile and Beauregard (2016) found that among individuals who spent extensive time in telecommuting (e.g., full-time telecommuters), isolation was negatively associated with performance. On the other hand, individuals who spent limited time teleworking (e.g., part-time teleworkers) had a negligible perceived impact of isolation on performance. This reinforces the assertion that organisations must provide telecommuters with opportunities for face-to-face interactions and relationship building. In this context, social events that strengthen work relationships can further improve telecommuters' perceptions of 'belonging' to an organisation. At the same time, part-time telecommuting arrangements can allow for regular contact with co-workers while yielding the positive benefits of telecommuting.

Therefore, while working from home can lead to social and professional isolation that hampers knowledge sharing and job prospects (van der Lippe & Lippényi, 2020) this can be moderated by effective management strategies; the adoption of suitable platforms that facilitate cooperation and knowledge sharing may help optimise the performance of teams with a high proportion of telecommuters. Despite concerns about a reduction of informal face-to-face meetings, which are an essential part of the work experience, due to the increased use of ICT communication, Nijp et al. (2016) reinstate that working half the week from home and half the week at the office still allows social interactions and bonds to form, avoid psychological isolation and maintain a good quality of social functioning and relationships among co-workers:

We conclude that implementation of NWW [new ways of working] does not necessarily lead to changes in psychosocial job characteristics, and that it is possible to implement such a large and far-reaching intervention without negatively affecting employees' work–nonwork balance, well-being or job-related outcomes.

Another form of an arrangement referred to as 'co-working space' is an interesting option to consider, especially when the desire to recruit from a large talent pool is a significant reason for an organisation to adopt telecommuting arrangements (Conradie & de Klerk, 2019). In their study, Robelski et al. (2019) fund that coworking spaces offer favourable characteristics that could supersede difficulties of working from home, especially where social isolation is concerned. They conceded, however, that this comes with potential risk factors that may include noise and privacy conflicts typical of work office arrangements. Indeed, according to their study, which focused on the German employee sector, opted to telecommute from a coworking space mainly to have a social and enjoyable atmosphere

24 | P a g e

(92.2%) and private life (85.9%). This was followed by 'interacting with others' and the fostering of a sense of 'community'. Ergonomics and work arrangements also arise as major benefits: appealing rooms and facilities that factor in positive environmental factors may make such a co-working space an attractive option. This, therefore, offers a means of allowing telecommuting for employees who may want to establish physical boundaries between work from home, while also having the benefit of working in an office space closer to home.

Based on the literature reviewed above and recommendations from various sources, some strategies to be considered are listed below:

• Telecommuting programmes need to be crafted, written and agreed to, not assumed. WFH arrangements need to be formalised, respected and adhered to (Piszczek, 2017; Tustin, 2014; Wojcak et al., 2016).

• Managers need to ensure effective communication between telecommuters and non-telecommuters (Piszczek, 2017). This ensures including the telecommuter in the ongoings of the organisation (Wojcak et al., 2016).

• Discussion discipline needs to be maintained, especially during remote meetings. These agreements should be drafted and agreed to before meetings, ensuring smooth communication and effective time management (Meager, 2020).

• Managers need to inform non-telecommuters of telecommuters' availability schedules and contact information in the event of telecommuters' absence (Tustin, 2014).

• Managers need to suggest and possibly have some influence on the setup of telecommuting at home, along with provisions of equipment and suggestions on boundaries and space (Hynes, 2016; Piszczek, 2017).

• Guidelines are required about regular communications of telecommuters with the office-based workers, without such communications becoming a burden on the telecommuter (Tustin, 2014).

• Organisation administrators need to be trained in the implementation of telecommuting programmes, especially regarding expectations, monitoring, supervising, measuring and evaluating performance (Piszczek, 2017; Tustin, 2014).

• In the event of technological failure, backup systems need to be ready (Donnelly & Proctor-Thomson, 2015; Meager, 2020; Piszczek, 2017; Tustin, 2014).

Many of the above strategies pertain to effective boundary management. When done in a congruent and effective manner, boundary management between the telecommuter and the manager can reduce employee stress, ensure a degree of autonomy and control for the telecommuter, while also including the telecommuter in the ongoings of the organisation. These serve to make telecommuting an overall positive experience for both the organisation and the telecommuter. The points above also stress out that telecommuting should not be taken for granted, but rather as a work arrangement that, subject to careful setup and management, can reap great benefits to both the telecommuter and the enabling organisation.

25 | P a g e

2.8.2. Individual strategies

Ideally, the organisational support provided, a home-based office space should be pleasant and ergonomic, ensuring a healthy work environment (Ansong & Boateng, 2018; Meager, 2020). This can also occur in various locations, with effective use of 'third spaces' close to homes such as libraries, coffee shops, trains, hotels and other meeting places. Indeed, one could choose a location for a particular work role, emulating the different rooms in the office, while being in one's comfort zone (Di Domenico et al., 2014; Raghuram, 2014).

Telecommuters can use (a) physical, (b) temporal, (c) behavioural and (d) communicative strategies to create boundaries similar to that of the office environment. Developing such strategies allows the telecommuter to build boundaries to their preferences for segmentation or integration, and employees with greater job autonomy and control are in general better able to do so (Boccabella & Bain, 2018). Some strategies that organisations can share with telecommuters to develop and safeguard their work/home space arrangements (Biron & van Veldhoven, 2016) include:

a) Physical strategies: Selecting a specific room for work; utilising doors and locks; closing the work area door; separating work and home computers/phones to avoid the risk of work spilling over into family/home life.

b) Temporal: Setting up appointments to limit time at work, including self-set appointments such as walking a dog at 5 pm or meeting friends, and draw a line between work and home/family roles; enacting a virtual workday that mimics being in the physical office (Boccabella & Bain, 2018).

c) Behavioural: not answering the work phone outside work hours; avoiding spillover and over-availability (e.g., turning off phone and computer and not entering workspace during the non-work time).

d) Communicative: instructing children or other family members to knock the work-room door before entering; setting expectations with family and colleagues on work/home boundaries.

Nevertheless, the strategies above can only work effectively when telecommuting employees and their supervisors/managers agree to a code of conduct. This could include formal agreements about after-hours working to avoid creating an integration culture that removes boundaries between work and home time and pushes employees to stay connected to work after hours (Delanoeije et al., 2019). This distinction is crucially important both for organisations and employees, and managers should offer counselling to their telecommuters to address ways of dealing with pressing home demands while telecommuting (Delanoeije et al., 2019).

26 | P a g e

3. Conclusions

Although the COVID-19 lockdowns in various countries offered a unique opportunity to test the feasibility of telecommuting, the latter had been already becoming increasingly prevalent, with the respective arrangements differing vastly and, if properly managed, yielding various organisational and employee benefits. Nonetheless, gender, income and personality differences must be accounted when establishing WFH policies to ensure equal opportunities and respect of individual circumstances and preferences.

Telecommuters, in general, enjoy more flexible working hours than their commuting counterparts, especially when their outputs are goal-oriented. A sense of control and flexibility to work schedules is conducive to positive experiences of telecommuting and, consequently, favourable business and worker outcomes. A goal-focused telecommuting arrangement can benefit both telecommuters and supervisors, especially when a degree of autonomy and control is afforded to the telecommuter. On the other hand, excessive surveillance builds mistrust and increases stress on the telecommuter, and can be enormously counterproductive, encouraging control-resistance.

However, setting boundaries remains an integral part of WFH arrangements, and positive outcomes of telecommuting can only be ensured with the establishment of clear work-life boundaries which limit the negative consequences of spillover of work into home-time and minimise work-family conflicts. Advice on establishing boundaries should be provided from organisations to telecommuters, and, over time, families with telecommuters can become habituated to the telecommuter and more respectful of such boundaries. A 'rite of separation' (e.g., when the laptop opens, work begins) mindset between home and work roles could be an effective means of boundary setting. Also, a 'third space' (e.g., cafeteria, library) can be an option for telecommuters who do not have space at home for effective setup.

Moreover, telecommuting comes with risks of social isolation that can hinder job performance and negatively affect the telecommuter, including mistrust, 'being taken for granted' and low career progression prospects, with such effects possibly influencing co-workers and team members adversely as well. However, physical isolation does not have to mean psychosocial isolation. The latter can be mediated through strong relationships both at work and beyond. Efforts to reduce feelings of social isolation can lead to significant improvements in mental health indices for high sensitivity groups, especially older age groups and women.

In general, a supportive telecommuting/work environment ensures a 'normative' experience of telecommuting and builds confidence in the telecommuter, social engagement of teleworkers outside work hours can improve perceptions of 'visibility'. Equally important, telecommuting intensity is a crucial determinant of mental health and wellbeing, and part-time telework seems to be the optimum arrangement. Part-time telecommuting seems to provide the benefits of reducing telecommuter physical isolation and improves telecommuter visibility while reaping the benefits of telecommuting. Also, co-working spaces offer a 'middle-ground' approach, where telecommuters can adopt good work-home boundaries while allowing social interaction in a positive environment.

27 | P a g e

Overall, telecommuting should not be taken for granted and explicit guidelines and effective management along with technological amenities with back-ups and proper workspace set up at home are essential to yield benefits from telework. Guidelines for telecommuting must be set up and adhered to by both the telecommuter and the organisation. Managers must respect their telecommuters and ensure their inclusion in the structure of the organisation. Effective communication between telecommuters and managers/supervisors, with the use of proper ICT platforms amongst other means, can ensure optimal work performance and build trust, while mutually agreed boundary settings and WFH arrangements are key to effective and productive telecommuting.

28 | P a g e

4. References

Abendroth, A., & Reimann, M. (2018). Telework and work-family conflict across workplaces: Investigating the implications of work-family-supportive and high-demand workplace cultures Reimann. In J. Obradović & S. L. Blair (Eds.), The Work-Family Interface : Spillover, Complications, and Challenges. Emerald Publishing Limited.

Allen, T. D., Golden, T. D., & Shockley, K. M. (2015). How effective is telecommuting? Assessing the status of our scientific findings. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 16(2), 40–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100615593273

Anderson, A. J., Kaplan, S. A., & Vega, R. P. (2015). The impact of telework on emotional experience: When, and for whom, does telework improve daily affective well-being? European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24(6), 882–897. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2014.966086

Ansong, E., & Boateng, R. (2018). Organisational adoption of telecommuting: Evidence from a developing country. Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 84(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/isd2.12008

APSC. (n.d.). Teleworking. Australian Public Service Commission. Retrieved October 2, 2020, from https://www.apsc.gov.au/teleworking

Arlinghaus, A., & Nachreiner, F. (2014). Health effects of supplemental work from home in the European Union. Chronobiology International, 31(10), 1100–1107. https://doi.org/10.3109/07420528.2014.957297

Asgari, H., Jin, X., & Du, Y. (2016). Examination of the impacts of telecommuting on the time use of nonmandatory activities. Transportation Research Record, 2566, 83–92. https://doi.org/10.3141/2566-09

Bartel, C. A., Wrzesniewski, A., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (2012). Knowing where you stand: Physical isolation, perceived respect, and organizational identification among virtual employees. Organization Science, 23(3), 743–757. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0661

Basile, K. A., & Beauregard, T. A. (2016). Strategies for successful telework: how effective employees manage work/home boundaries. Strategic HR Review, 15(3), 106–111. https://doi.org/10.1108/shr-03-2016-0024

Bathini, D. R., & Kandathil, G. M. (2020). Bother me only if the client complains: control and resistance in home-based telework in India. Employee Relations, 42(1), 90–106. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-09-2018-0241

Biron, M., & van Veldhoven, M. (2016). When control becomes a liability rather than an asset: Comparing home and office days among part-time teleworkers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(1), 1317–1322. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2106

Boccabella, D., & Bain, K. (2018). The age of the home worker – part 1 : deductibility of home occupancy expenses. Australian Tax Reform, 33(September 2018), 827–871.

29 | P a g e

Cicei, C. (2015). Managing the Work and Family Roles. Does Flexibility Reduce the Negative Interference? An Exploratory Study. Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy, 3(4), 717–727.

Conradie, W. J., & de Klerk, J. J. (2019). To flex or not to flex? Flexible work arrangements amongst software developers in an emerging economy. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 17, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajhrm.v17i0.1175

Das, M., Das, A., & Mandal, A. (2020). Examining the impact of lockdown (due to COVID-19) on Domestic Violence (DV): An evidences from India. Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 54, 102335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajp.2020.102335

de Haas, M., Faber, R., & Hamersma, M. (2020). How COVID-19 and the Dutch ‘intelligent lockdown’ change activities, work and travel behaviour: Evidence from longitudinal data in the Netherlands. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 6, 100150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2020.100150

de Vries, H., Tummers, L., & Bekkers, V. (2019). The Benefits of Teleworking in the Public Sector: Reality or Rhetoric? Review of Public Personnel Administration, 39(4), 570–593. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X18760124

Delanoeije, J., Verbruggen, M., & Germeys, L. (2019). Boundary role transitions: A day-to-day approach to explain the effects of home-based telework on work-to-home conflict and home-to-work conflict. Human Relations, 72(12), 1843–1868. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726718823071

Dewi, I., & Adiarsi, G. R. (2020). Leveraging the Covid-19 Crisis in Making Work-From-Home a Mainstream Practice in the Oil and Gas Industry. International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding, 7(6), 305–316. https://doi.org/10.18415/ijmmu.v7i6.1770

Dey, M., Frazis, H., Loewenstein, M., & Sun, H. (2020). Ability to work from home: evidence from two surveys and implications for the labor market in the COVID-19 pandemic. Monthly Labor Review, June, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.21916/mlr.2020.14

Di Domenico, M., Daniel, E., & Nunan, D. (2014). “Mental mobility” in the digital age: Entrepreneurs and the online home-based business. New Technology, Work and Employment, 29(3), 266–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12034

Dockery, A M, & Bawa, S. (2014). Is Working from Home Good Work or Bad Work? Evidence from Australian Employees. Australian Journal of L Abour Economics, 17(2), 163–190.

Dockery, Alfred M., & Bawa, S. (2018). When two worlds collude: Working from home and family functioning in Australia. International Labour Review, 157(4), 609–630. https://doi.org/10.1111/ilr.12119

Donnelly, N., & Proctor-Thomson, S. B. (2015). Disrupted work: Home-based teleworking (HbTW) in the aftermath of a natural disaster. New Technology, Work and Employment, 30(1), 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12040

Dougherty, T. (2017). Impact of Flexible Work Policies. Benefits Quarterly, 33(4), 50–52.

30 | P a g e

Duxbury, L., & Halinski, M. (2014). When more is less: An examination of the relationship between hours in telework and role overload. Work, 48(1), 91–103. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-141858

Eddleston, K. A., & Mulki, J. (2017). Toward Understanding Remote Workers’ Management of Work–Family Boundaries: The Complexity of Workplace Embeddedness. Group and Organization Management, 42(3), 346–387. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601115619548

Eurofound. (2020). Living, working and COVID-19. Office of the European Union.

Fonner, K. L., & Stache, L. C. (2012). All in a day’s work, at home: Teleworkers’ management of micro role transitions and the work-home boundary. New Technology, Work and Employment, 27(3), 242–257. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-005X.2012.00290.x

Gadeyne, N., Verbruggen, M., Delanoeije, J., & De Cooman, R. (2018). All wired, all tired? Work-related ICT-use outside work hours and work-to-home conflict: The role of integration preference, integration norms and work demands. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 107(May 2017), 86–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.03.008

Gajendran, R. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2007). The Good, the Bad, and the Unknown About Telecommuting: Meta-Analysis of Psychological Mediators and Individual Consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1524–1541. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1524

Gajendran, R. S., Harrison, D. A., & Delaney-Klinger, K. (2015). Are Telecommuters Remotely Good Citizens? Unpacking Telecommuting’s Effects on Performance Via I-Deals and Job Resources. Personnel Psychology, 68(2), 353–393. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12082

Giménez-Nadal, J. I., Molina, J. A., & Velilla, J. (2019). Work time and well-being for workers at home: evidence from the American Time Use Survey. International Journal of Manpower, 41(2), 184–206. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-04-2018-0134

Glass, J. L., & Noonan, M. C. (2016). Telecommuting and earnings trajectories among American women and men 1989-2008. Social Forces, 95(1), 217–250. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sow034

Golden, T. D., & Gajendran, R. S. (2019). Unpacking the Role of a Telecommuter’s Job in Their Performance: Examining Job Complexity, Problem Solving, Interdependence, and Social Support. Journal of Business and Psychology, 34(1), 55–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-018-9530-4

Graham-Harrison, E., Giuffrida, A., Smith, H., & Ford, L. (2020, March 28). Lockdowns Around the World Bring Rise in Domestic Violence. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/mar/28/lockdowns-world-rise-domestic-violence%0A

Hamadani, J. D., Hasan, M. I., Baldi, A. J., Hossain, S. J., Shiraji, S., Bhuiyan, M. S. A., Mehrin, S. F., Fisher, J., Tofail, F., Tipu, S. M. M. U., Grantham-McGregor, S., Biggs, B.-A., Braat, S., & Pasricha, S.-R. (2020). Immediate impact of stay-at-home orders to control COVID-19 transmission on socioeconomic conditions, food insecurity, mental health, and intimate partner violence in Bangladeshi women and their families: an interrupted time series. The Lancet. Global Health,

31 | P a g e

20, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30366-1

Hambly, H., & Lee, J. (Donghoon). (2019). The rural telecommuter surplus in Southwestern Ontario, Canada. Telecommunications Policy, 43(3), 278–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2018.07.009

Henke, R. M., Benevent, R., Schulte, P., Rinehart, C., Crighton, K. A., & Corcoran, M. (2016). The effects of telecommuting intensity on employee health. American Journal of Health Promotion, 30(8), 604–612. https://doi.org/10.4278/ajhp.141027-QUAN-544

Holland, S. J., Simpson, K. M., Dalal, R. S., & Vega, R. P. (2016). I can’t steal from a coworker if I work from home: Conceptual and measurement-related issues associated with studying counterproductive work behavior in a telework setting. Human Performance, 29(3), 172–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2016.1160094

Hope, J. (2020). Working from home? Follow these tips for successful remote work. Enrollment Management Report, 24(2), 8–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/emt.30655

HSE. (2020). Protecting lone workers: How to control the risks of working alone. Health & Safety Executive.

Hunter, E. M., Clark, M. A., & Carlson, D. S. (2019). Violating Work-Family Boundaries: Reactions to Interruptions at Work and Home. Journal of Management, 45(3), 1284–1308. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206317702221

Hynes, M. (2016). Developing (tele)work? A multi-level sociotechnical perspective of telework in Ireland. Research in Transportation Economics, 57, 21–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2016.06.008

Kaduk, A., Genadek, K., Kelly, E. L., & Moen, P. (2019). Involuntary vs. voluntary flexible work: insights for scholars and stakeholders. Community, Work and Family, 22(4), 412–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/13668803.2019.1616532

Kim, J. (2018). Workplace Flexibility and Parent–Child Interactions Among Working Parents in the U.S. In Social Indicators Research (Vol. 151, Issue 2). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-018-2032-y

Krasulja, N., Vasiljevic-Blagojevic, M., & Radojevic, I. (2015). Working from home as alternative for acheving work-life balance. Ekonomika, 61(2), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.5937/ekonomika1502131k

Lapierre, L. M., van Steenbergen, E. F., Peeters, M. C. W., & Kluwer, E. S. (2015). Juggling work and family responsibilities when involuntarily working more from home: A multiwave study of financial sales professionals. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37, 804–822. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2075

Limón, A. (2020). 5 TIPS to Work from Home Successfully. Journal of Financial Planning, 33(5), 12.

Manoochehri, G., & Pinkerton, T. (2003). Managing Telecommuters: Opportunities and Challenges. American Business Review, 21(1), 9.

32 | P a g e

Masuda, A. D., Holtschlag, C., & Nicklin, J. M. (2017). Why the availability of telecommuting matters: The effects of telecommuting on engagement via goal pursuit. Career Development International, 22(2), 200–219. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-05-2016-0064

Meager, L. (2020). Remote working: tips, tricks and anecdotes from the IFLR team. International Financial Law Review, N.PAG-N.PAG. https://ezproxy.uniandes.edu.co:8443/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=142688289&lang=es&site=ehost-live

Nijp, H. H., Beckers, D. G. J., van de Voorde, K., Geurts, S. A. E., & Kompier, M. A. J. (2016). Effects of new ways of working on work hours and work location, health and job-related outcomes. Chronobiology International, 33(6), 604–618. https://doi.org/10.3109/07420528.2016.1167731

Ojala, S., Nätti, J., & Anttila, T. (2014). Informal overtime at home instead of telework: Increase in negative work-family interface. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 34(1), 69–87. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSSP-03-2013-0037

Ongaki, J. (2019). An examination of the relationship between flexible work arrangements, work-family conflict, organizational commitment, and job performance. Management, 23(2), 169–187. https://doi.org/10.2478/manment-2019-0025

Picu, C. G., & Dinu, A. (2016). Research on the Current Telecommuting Trends in United States and European Union Markets. Management and Economics Review, 1(2), 194–202.

Piszczek, M. M. (2017). Boundary control and controlled boundaries: Organizational expectations for technology use at the work–family interface. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(4), 592–611. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2153

Raghuram, S. (2014). Telecommuting in India: Pitfalls and Possibilities. South Asian Journal of Human Resources Management, 1(2), 207–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/2322093714549108

Raghuram, S., & Fang, D. (2014). Telecommuting and the role of supervisory power in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 31(2), 523–547. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-013-9360-x

Robelski, S., Keller, H., Harth, V., & Mache, S. (2019). Coworking spaces: The better home office? A psychosocial and health-related perspective on an emerging work environment. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(13). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16132379

Rohde, N., D’Ambrosio, C., Tang, K. K., & Rao, P. (2016). Estimating the Mental Health Effects of Social Isolation. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 11(3), 853–869. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-015-9401-3

Roman, H. (2020). classroom challenge: the work-at-home challenge. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 80(1), 26–27.

Sarbu, M. (2018). The role of telecommuting for work-family conflict among German employees. Research in Transportation Economics, 70(December 2017), 37–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2018.07.009

Schulte, M. (2015). Distance faculty experiences: A personal perspective of benefits and detriments

33 | P a g e

of telecommuting. Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 63(1), 63–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/07377363.2014.998048

Shepherd-Banigan, M., Bell, J. F., Basu, A., Booth-LaForce, C., & Harris, J. R. (2016). Workplace Stress and Working from Home Influence Depressive Symptoms Among Employed Women with Young Children. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 23(1), 102–111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12529-015-9482-2

Solís, M. S. (2016). Telework: conditions that have a positive and negative impact on the work-family conflict. Academia Revista Latinoamericana de Administracion, 29(4), 435–449. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARLA-10-2015-0289

Steidelmüller, C., Meyer, S.-C., & Müller, G. (2020). Home-based telework and presenteeism across Europe. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. https://doi.org/doi: 10.1097/JOM.0000000000001992

Tripathi, S. (2020). Analysing the Sentiments towards Work-From-Home Experience during COVID-19 Pandemic. Journal of Innovation Management, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.24840/2183-0606_008.001_0003

Turetken, O., Jain, A., Quesenberry, B., & Ngwenyama, O. (2011). An Empirical Investigation of the Impact of Individual and. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 54(1), 56–67. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2010.2041387

Tustin, D. H. (2014). Telecommuting academics within an open distance education environment of South Africa: More content, productive, and healthy? International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 15(3), 185–214. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i3.1770

University of Melbourne. (2013). Families, Incomes and Jobs, Volume 8: A Statistical Report on Waves 1 to 10 of the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey (HILDA).

van der Lippe, T., & Lippényi, Z. (2018). Beyond Formal Access: Organizational Context, Working From Home, and Work–Family Conflict of Men and Women in European Workplaces. Social Indicators Research, 151(2), 383–402. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-018-1993-1

van der Lippe, T., & Lippényi, Z. (2020). Co-workers working from home and individual and team performance. New Technology, Work and Employment, 35(1), 60–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12153

Varma, K. V., Ho, C. I., Stanek, D. M., & Mokhtarian, P. L. (1998). Duration and frequency of telecenter use: once a telecommuter, always a telecommuter? Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 6C(1–2), 47–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0968-090X(98)00007-2

Wang, W., Albert, L., & Sun, Q. (2020). Employee isolation and telecommuter organizational commitment. Employee Relations, 42(3), 609–625. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-06-2019-0246

Wheatley, Dan. (2012). Good to be home? Time-use and satisfaction levels among home-based teleworkers. New Technology, Work and Employment, 27(3), 224–241. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-005X.2012.00289.x

Wheatley, Daniel. (2017). Employee satisfaction and use of flexible working arrangements. Work,

34 | P a g e

Employment and Society, 31(4), 567–585. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017016631447

Wojcak, E., Bajzikova, L., Sajgalikova, H., & Polakova, M. (2016). How to Achieve Sustainable Efficiency with Teleworkers: Leadership Model in Telework. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 229, 33–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.07.111

Zia, A., & Bilal, H. (2017). Impact of Telecommuting on the Financial and Social Life of Telecommuters in Pakistan. Pakistan Economic and Social Review, 55(1), 185–199.